 Why do people think if you deprive yourself of sugar that the cancer won't be able to grow or that sugar does make cancer grow? I believe that people have misinterpreted Otto Warburg's findings who, you know, he received the Nobel Prize and all, did a phenomenal job in terms of kind of establishing this tumor metabolism field and how tumor cells have some reliance on increasing glucose absorption. People have taken this way out of context because of those early findings of seeing how glucose uptake is increased in cells and that this creates, you know, the Warburg effect, oddly, you know, named after him because he, you know, he discovered it. But they've taken this out of effect and extrapolated it in such a way where because of his observations now, it's kind of easy from somebody who doesn't study this particular thing, say, okay, increase glucose absorption, witness in tumor cells, there must be some sort of reliance on glucose. If I cut out the glucose, cancer is gone. But obviously, when we look at the literature, especially from now between the 1920s and 2023, a lot of time has passed and we know that glucose is simply very, very simply. And I might even be saying this somewhat wrongly, but a means to an end, to sustain tumor cell metabolism. Glucose absorption might be an increase or might be increased in many tumor sites, you know, like pancreatic cancer as an example, to increase the metabolic outputs of the citric acid cycle as a means of like stimulating glutamine increase into the citric acid cycle, depending off there's mutations of enzymes in the citric acid cycle or glutaminase one highly expressed in some cancers, like one of the cancers that I studied. So again, glucose increase in cancers is a means to an end. And I believe that a lot of this stems from misinterpretations of Otto Warburg's finding back in the 1920s.