Okay, great, so can you see the potential of this fact? We have a "scientific" oncology that doesn't know how to poison healthy cells less than cancerous cells. They will hedge, equivocate and evade the issue, for example by calling the deadly effects of their treatments "side" effects. Meanwhile, sugar lights up the tumors like a Christmas tree but they don't mind giving it to him because it allows them to look and see where the tumors are. But they don't take advantage of that fact except to just look. Why? I would really love to have someone from the mainstream join this conversation.
There is an anticancer protocol that exploits a cancer cell’s hunger for sugar. From memory, it involves something along the lines of some cancer cells (leukemia I think) being unable to differentiate between molecules of glucose and some form of Vit C. So feed the patient massive doses of that Vit C and the greedy cancer cells take in so much it ends up killing them. It has to be really massive doses, otherwise the rogue cells just grow better on the abundance of Vit C. Such high doses may need to be administered as an IV (unless there is a way to administer transdermally with DMSO, I haven't researched this far).
I still question whether sugar will bond with CCO to actually carry it to cancer cells. That's the key here and the main reason I objected so strongly when idea was first proposed. (By the way, thank you for posting it.)
Even if it does carry CCO, other questions are what ratio to combine them and how, what other ingredients in mix or supplements to improve effectiveness, and can it be done by us at home or does it require lab equipment? And would it work better than our current bio bombs?
Looking forward to finding more details on this.