There is a time where extreme patience leads to extreme impatience. In the majority i never ban at all but what when it is observed that users respond without even reading a single source provided, it is the same as spam. Or if argumentative debate is inclined towards a room, i will use dialogue but if it does fail in the end, and they show no sign of understanding at all, then yes, the removal is neccesary. There were no rules aside from this in my kik messenger rooms, and at this point i will frequent here even less and was going to mention this earlier as the majority of users here do not use or understand scientific inquiry and it would be a waste of effort that could be put elsewhere in true dialogue and building the person, rather than tearing them apart. There are a multitude of reasons why most can never come to use scientific dialogue, however, my time and patience is limited at this time. Lastly, if they or the majority of users here wanted to actually understand subjects, they would not respond in such a manner. I will come here to use dialogue alone and post essays and ask for those who will dialogue as well for their input and what they think, however i will not waste my time when i through analysis can see that it will not progress. For example, if i were to persist in helping a psychologically distressed patient who showed no signs of recovery from schizoidal or alzheimers, where they have become crazed or faint of memory to the point where it can no longer progress, i shall calmly leave, just as a disease being recognized or a virus by doctors in a sick patient is to be vaccinated or sought out as quickly as possible. I am here to use dialogue, though i understand it to be a website of argumentatively driven conjecture and debate, and i can see the contradictions, however i came here for my friend and colleague Ryan and for possible constructive scientific dialogue with other members. Perhaps at the final stage i would debate if before knowing that is the persons true desire, combined with knowing that it will not work. The evidence that ive observed for years points me to dialogue working, however slow; however, if the la guage barrier and understanding of all parts of the subject are recognized and dialogue is established, the process of true learning will persist. For example: when scientists go into a laboratory seeking to attack a disease, they do not go into the laboratory with means of opinion or argumentation, but instead with the tools that can help end that particular disease, as well as directed towards means of the scientific method and an establishment of dialogue by understanding all methods of ending that same disease. We do not see them arguing over which method works, they look at them all and with the scientfic method, come to a conclusion based on all evidence. in the same manner, we as people seeking to learn and speak on many subjects, can do the same instead of performing argumentative debate attempting to belittle or show that a certain point about something is true when if we step back and work as a single system. Take for example the analogy of an organism that no longer works against itself but instead of as a particular body part of that same system, we work as one; instead of harming our body, we become healthier and grow towards having a longer life a better brain, more balanced emotions and as a result, a better life. Thank you for reading. I hope that you understand my language. Also, i attempted to come up with a sound and straight forward and correctly centered reply to your private messages, but i could not find the most efficient way to answer you when i saw that simply saying i am myself, you would not think so. Many times i have been confused as the same person as another and i understand that thought of yours Ming, due to the majority of users here constantly forming new accounts, that indeed comes to be sensible; however, when i think to respond to that i think that it would not progress and that certain answers for those questions would lead to conversations that would not avail, such as how i came to meet my friend or where it is now, just as i would not ask you about matters that are associated with your lifestyle or your personal barriers, which yes eventually can be spoken about and should, but at a slowly generated pace so we do not obstruct one anothers space or boundary and i would not ask you about those matters unless you as a human or as a man wanted to discuss that. Also, When i look at what this actually is, i recall that it is an internet forum--a great forum for discussion, combined with possible useful informatively-driven collaberation--that is, nonetheless, still just that, an online forum. Point is guys, it isnt life or death nor do i take it that seriously, despite my ample response. I did so because i have the free time now. Have a good evening everyone.

Once the papers are read, along with another paper in full evidence, we will see that these nanobots can and have already formed methods of destroying cancerous cells that yes are in the trillions. However, as an example in the description of the dna nanobots, in the paper "folding and characterization of a bio-responsive robot from DNA origami" we can observe that certain nanobots can be given the appearance of a virus in order to perform destructive methods on the cancerous cells. Nextly, this has been seen to work with cockroaches as well as one human, in the human trials in which i will provide. On a side note, partiality exists in groups of most humans in that they all offer parts of the reality and in misunderstanding this we claim it to be opinionated or conjecture combined with what we call "wrong" and this leads us to understand that by seeing every part of the reality, through dialogue, we can work together to see this, along with scientific evidence as well as re-conditioning; examples of this can be found in scientific progress itself, for instance new evidence in physics or specifically, from molecular technology to nanotechnology. Also, by this I understand that yes, none of you are exactly incorrect. There is great evidence for the misuse of so called cures or vaccines by corporate organizations and hospitals in order to gain profit for instance, for the correct monetary price, higher classes have access to more efficient medical procedures where they can survive with a heart or pancreas transplant and an impoverished person will die. This is incorrect yes, however, given the evidence of the 2017 trials and scientific papers, we can see that this really is occuring. Not exactly a cure, there is no such thing, but in science and the understanding of the practicality of the use of nanotechnology and the nanobots, the forms of cancer: leukemia, pancreatic, and so on; the cancerous cells are constantly "attacked" and remain in the body after induction so that if they return, the nanobots constantly repair which can be seen in the tables of the studies on molecular redistribution which will be seen. I believe once we understand the meaning of the language and remove our ego, we will have no disagreement. Thank you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FsFvTpKDrKVgRTLNhpgfvtk_BcixIcti/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yDQg6iH9WSBtWTmZ2cHsaOOZ1S0G1NLE/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H16W_NqutwUoITdDjVXlAd4t2Ln9p8jN/view?usp=drivesdk

They will never cure cancer. Not because they cant, but because curing diseases does not make them rich. Treating disease how they make money.