Cancer-causing Glyphosate Herbicide Found in Urine of 93% of Americans.

deathslayer.....whacky response.....about a 9 on the tension level.....cool our jets

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: superman2012
Does that mean that 93% of people are going to get cancer? I wonder what the sensationalized headline was supposed to make people think?...

You do not seem concerned so disregard the message. I don't care what you feed your family.

Ignore this thread and feed your family this stuff.....

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Maybe people don't take kindly to sensationalist, poorly written, pseudo-scientific dribble doled out by websites who tell people vaccines will kill their children (even though pertussis and polio have a higher chance of killing your kids), anti-GMO garbage(as we know thousands of studies have proven GMOs safe, but who the hell needs facts), and I'm willing to bet all the sites linked to it are probably selling something..Like Oh yeah the 2 LBS 10 dollar bag of corn that is "tested for GMOs"(Good luck with that one).

Science, actual science, is the reason I remain unconcerned over your sensationalist garbage.

When I was an infant, I received the first of the whopping cough (pertussis) vaccines. I contracted a high fever, and the doctor informed my parents that he couldn't in good conscience administer the remaining vaccines because I'd nearly been killed by the first. My mother sought a second opinion, who confirmed that a certain amount of infants are killed each year by vaccinations, and that I appeared to be at higher risk than most. That was in Alaska, where people (including doctors) are less trusting of the word of authority figures, and less prone to let others think for them. We later moved to the lower 48, and while I was in high school I was selected to participate in statewide IQ testing, where I placed 99th percentile overall. I've always excelled at anything that didn't tremendously bore me.

My family's intelligence is average, and I had spent my life to that point surrounded by average people. Nature nor nurture appears to have played a role. The only relevant influential factors in my youth which were notably atypical was that my mother was an old-fashioned housewife, and I wasn't vaccinated. I'm not the only one with a similar story.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: jappee

I understand that.

These safe levels exist for a reason. One is: on food. For consumption. That is why they are called "safe-levels."

They then end up in our bodies (along with other chemicals, poisons, heavy metals, etc which are, unfortunately part our our environment), and we only metabolize so much.

There are also safe levels of radiation. So you would consume or move your body trough safe level radiation? OK maybe you will, but let me ask you if you will send your kid to a safe level radiation area?

Because of people like you this corporations have business, maybe ur working for one of them. And sadly you are not in minority, you are in majority and the rest of us are wackos who just care too much for our. Health and our descendants.

a reply to: Navarro

That settles it. Nothing more scientific than a personal anecdote about how not getting vaccinated makes you super smart.

Screw all those doctors and nurses and scientists whose efforts have helped eradicate deadly disease for almost the last century.

And people are living longer than ever. Nice we can control swarms of locusts to prevent decimation of the food supply and use preservatives to prevent food poisoning.

a reply to: Navarro

How many third world children die from not getting vaccinations? With our children we evaluated the risks. There are risks in not getting vaccinated and risks in getting vaccinated. Countries that vaccinate tend to have a longer life span. Go figure?

a reply to: Navarro

I don't think Navarro is advocating that everyone stop vaccinating. Just offered a personal account and not much more to this point...but on the subject I've been researching tirelessly over the subject because of so many births in my life lately and really the only certainty anyone can have until very well designed experiments take place is that we aren't sure in the longrun, just like gmos, radiation, cell signals, roundup, or having cell phones in pockets next to our peenies and wee-woos. The experiments needed to get closer to the answer would require creating a group of potentially susceptible or contagious young people which is inhumane. Personally I think effects change person to person and I think some vaccines are ok and others laced with BS, one in particular I won't mention it the risk ofbeing hated but boy oh boy are the accusations regarding one and the evidence supporting the claims just unbelievable, its one my kids won't get and for certain reasons in logic it shouldn't hurt NOTgetting it. C'mon computer people, design a program that takes each cell of each possible human body into account along with all possible effects every substance on earth can have and put me together and one day perhaps a computer will be able to identify exactly what each individual will encounter or not encounter when exposed to every poison, med, vaccine, spill, leak, pesticide, etc

a reply to: jappee

I think that any glyphosate in concentrations of ppb or ppm is too much to be in my urine.

Absolutely.

And when you consider that urine is a blood filtrate, then it has been traveling to, and potentially depositing into, every place that the blood travels to, meaning glyphosate (an organophosphate) has to filter through the kidneys, liver and other vital organs.

Be afraid...be very afraid.

There's so much ignorance here. Whatever though. You'll believe what you want without even remotely understanding how any of this works.

Look at those n values. 7 children tested, all of them paid to have this done. This is bad science and no data in studies like these can used for analysis and forming a conclusion. Sorry, but it's true. I myself have a lot of questions about glyphosate, but at this point in our lives we are providing more food and living longer than we ever have. Consider how much glyphosate is used and the actual cases of cancer that can proven directly linked to glyphosate. I'd take the guess that any linked cancer is due to improper handling during application. This is the farmer and applicators responsibility. I'd actually guess that through diet, the actual cases of cancer proven to be caused through consumption of glyphosate sprayed crops is zero.

Here's an excellent write up. You actually have to read the whole thing and think, not just take out tidbits to support whatever your narrative might be. weedcontrolfreaks.com...


This whole thing is almost like the misunderstanding of radiation exposure. Sure, you get exposed to radiation everytime you get out in the sun, but you know not to stand out there for too long. We're not standing in front of the x-ray machine with it aimed directly at our testicles, and yet that will cause cancer so why not start cursing at the sun or your dentist if you're going to curse out something which has a similar mode of action in relation to exposure or concentration?

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: DeathSlayer



Glyphosate "is prevalent in most conventional foods"?? I thought it killed everything except for those few "Roundup Ready" GMO crops on the market? (Soy, corn, canola, sugar beets.) I guess it's probably prevalent in most processed foods because most contain at least one of either corn syrup or some form of soy. Maybe that's what they're referring to. I can't imagine it would be prevalent in any other produce besides those few.

Well if its corn and soy products and its passing thats where the high figures would come from. Although as one pointed out the study really doesn't cover near a wide enough field.

a reply to: saadad

Guess you should find a bubble to live in, because those safe levels of radiation are also found throughout nature, and in food, as well as many other naturally occurring things that we would consider harmful in larger amounts.

Unless you're comparing an area that has been "contaminated" by radiation (as opposed to naturally occurring radiation in foods) to TRACES of a poison (and that's ALL they are, are traces), in which case that's not a very honest comparison.

Yes, I guess I'm just a corporate apologist and not a guy trying to see through people's hyped up BS: the levels are actually measured in parts per million, but people are using a very unscientific study in a very isolated area that measures the results in even less dangerous and significant parts per BILLION.

You should get your pee checked, and see how much heavy metal, arsenic, and etc YOU also have just from living and eating.

a reply to: Liquesence

Exactly. Your body even has proteins which breakdown harmless chemicals into byproducts that are considered harmful in high concentrations, but get excreted naturally as your body knows how to do. Why not start an anti gene campaign? After all, your own body is giving you cancer right? The jump to conclusion mat is being heavily used today.

It's a mat, with lots of conclusions, and you jump to them.

That's the worst idea I've ever heard.

-Office Space

a reply to: Liquesence

Hey I heard that water is toxic at high concentrations and did you know that stuff ends up in your urine? I know, it's shocking. You know what they say, any amount of toxic chemicals in your body is too much! Better stop drinking water.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Navarro

How many third world children die from not getting vaccinations? With our children we evaluated the risks. There are risks in not getting vaccinated and risks in getting vaccinated. Countries that vaccinate tend to have a longer life span. Go figure?

The statistics available clearly demonstrate a stable human life expectancy until relatively recent times, probably averaging about 35 years, with variances for location and circumstances. I believe the life expectancy within the Virginia Colonies was about 25 years. I'm certain it would shock nobody to learn of a significant drop in life expectancy during the Spanish Flu.

Today's life expectancy ranges into the eighties, and I've no doubt that advances in medicine played a significant role in this. In 1900 the top three most common causes of death are said to be pneumonia, tuberculosis, and gastrointestinal infections, all infectious diseases. Today in America, about half of deaths are attributed to heart disease or tumors.

However, it should be noted that modern unvaccinated persons in America have a far greater life expectancy than 35 years. To my knowledge, no studies have demonstrated that the life expectancy of the unvaccinated is lower than the vaccinated. One can't say that vaccines have eradicated the most common causes of death either. Pneumonia, the top cause of death in 1900, remains very common in America today. You might argue that it's less common thanks to vaccines, but I think that to say vaccines doubled our life expectancy is to overlook the larger picture.

Our life expectancy may have doubled, but so has infant mortality. It was once extremely common for a woman to die while giving birth, and her child along with her. In 1600, of those who survived birth, one-third of children were dead by the age of nine, where malnutrition is thought to be the most common cause, granted, with disease coming in as a close second. The reason infants are baptized in our culture today is because in the past baptism was the height of science, thought to wash away original sin prior to attracting the attention of a vengeful god. If you travel to Europe in the year 1000, even among nobles, you'll find a people whose floors were covered in animal and human excrement as well as trash to include rotting meat, periodically covered with hay, in layers of filth. You find a people who didn't bathe because the practice was thought unholy, particularly in the case of bath houses, where one would be tempted by the unclothed bodied of others practicing hygiene. People wouldn't even drink water in those times on account of fear of toxicity. People commonly dumped their trash and human waste into water sources, which lead to an aversion of water. People preferred distilled beverages - alcoholic beverages. In essence, everyone was constantly drunk, wallowing in dense filth.

The reason for humanity's increased life expectancy is much more complicated than vaccines. Vaccination is common to more advanced, developed nations, where life styles are more distant from our medieval ancestors. Small Pox, as devastating as it was, is linked with animal husbandry. Even in those medieval times people tended to basically live in one-room bunk houses, and they shared their homes with their animal stock. Imagine sleeping in a room covered in dung, staring at a festering cow patty beside you, in the summer heat without any air conditioning. Imagine working the fields all day and coming home to that every night, yet only bathing once per month.

Do you really suppose that you need a lack of vaccines to explain why people didn't live as long in those times? In those less developed nations of today which still involve lifestyles of comparable squalor, do you really think a lack of vaccines is the primary reason for their lesser life expectancy?

a reply to: Navarro

Where did I say the increased in life expectancy was only do to vaccinations! I just implied the benefits of getting a vaccination out weighed the benefits of not getting one. You really need to step back and read the context of my quote. Take a deep breath and count to ten. Now, look at what else I have posted on this thread. Cheers

a reply to: Navarro

The more I think about it, not sure what your point is. Wouldn't vaccinations be more beneficial to all those people you claim live in squalor than a clean person like yourself?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Navarro

Where did I say the increased in life expectancy was only do to vaccinations!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Navarro

Countries that vaccinate tend to have a longer life span. Go figure?

You made the discussion about whether vaccines are responsible for longer life expectancies, not me. Now you'd rather have had a different discussion. You're welcome for the lecture on history.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
considering roundup has been used since 1974, when is the world's end coming?
is this possibly the slowest and most ineffective, whatever kind of conspiracy supposedly concocted?

It isn't about end of the world. It is about money and greed. The longer you live the more you pay. That is how they get you.
Why else is the gov over taxing and kicking a lot of people out of houses? This isn't 1900's. Obviously they don't want you to live too long. The Pharma companies wants more money.

a reply to: Navarro

You didn't lecture me on anything? Just implied vaccinations have benefits. I also implied people are living longer in this thread because we control crop eating insects and reduced instance's of food poisoning with preservatives. I'm not a big fan of man synthesized chemicals, but thier use seems to extend life expectancy. That was my main point. Sorry everyone for the distraction.......