Vaccine-glyphosate link exposed by Anthony Samsel

a reply to: X88B88

I know, I just believe in miracles.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: 727Sky
They can not keep these studies hidden forever!

They didn't www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... All of his works have been published once peer reviewed. That's how it works. Refreshing to have actual science to discuss as opposed to ill researched slogans, concepts, or flat out anti vax strawmen.

The paper in question is quite interesting. its a tough read but there are alot of interesting items IMHO

Kind of like mercury in Tuna, it make sense that we would find residues in eggs, milk etc.

The link between glyphosate and the increasing problem of resistant bacteria should also be investigated further

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Where's the study showing glyphosate in vaccines?

Its apparently in the works. However, Pubmed will not publish it untill its peer reviewed, fact checked etc.

I'm quite skeptical because researchers (I work with alot of them) are CIA like in keeping results to themselves until they feel its a slam dunk. Premature leakage of conclusions can and do result in ruined careers and reputation etc. Why would This guy would "leak" premature conclusions that could hurt him down the road.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

It's on an anti-GMO/anti-glyphosphate farming site.
I would doubt that they would be pro-vax.
The tactic used by anti-vax (and anti-science) isn't devious, it's pretty basic, they just lie.

Anyway, here's the "study".
people.csail.mit.edu...

It's very "scientific" in a (un)natural news type way.

The information in the site you linked is pretty good. I haven't seen that kind of information in a way that explains it so well in normal language. I have read countless NIH and European studies on it and this translation does seem somewhat correct and contains new information that I would need to verify before repeating it. Glyphosates are not the only chemistry out there that has these effects, I see many others that have similar properties, some being even considered natural in origion. But being a synthetic, it lowers our ability to detox and excrete the chemical. Some people have no problem but around forty percent of people do not have the enzymes to break it down if too much is taken into the body. Ten percent can get serious complications from it, I am in that group, It is one of the flagged things on both gene apps that I had done. I feel better eating more organic based foods. It sucks that they spray the power lines with agent white, there are a lot of raspberries there, not much else grows out there.

Scientifically, it's dreadful.
Unfortunately it's missed out on a lot of supporting data to be given any credence at all irrespective of the language it uses.
It would be very helpful for instance if there were descriptions of how the data was gathered, any control groups, confounding factors etc etc etc, you know, like would be given if a study had any scientific merit.
He's just cherry-picked a load of meaningless data and randomly copied and pasted it onto one, very bright, pdf.

Glyphosate isn't metabolised in humans, it's just excreted so your statement "forty percent of people do not have the enzymes to break it down if too much is taken into the body" is completely irrelevant and wholly wrong.
Any toxicity would be purely dependant upon dose and dose alone.

I also fail to see why being a "synthetic" means "it lowers our ability to detox and excrete the chemical"?
In this case it doesn't in the slightest, see above and I fail to see why it should in other cases too.

It is broken down for excretion by an enzyme that breaks down something else, it cannot be excreted if that enzyme is blocked. That information is out there in science literature somewhere. The kidneys do not just automatically excrete anything, the chemistry needs to be bound to an identifier. Everyone has the ability to detox this somewhat but it depends on whether they are consuming other things that that enzyme is also used for. If there is a shortage of that enzyme overall for the consumption of the chemistry, the chemistry builds up.

Synthetic means nothing other than it may not be identified by some people's metabolism and float around. If you do not pee, you won't excrete this in the urine either. It's endocrine disruptive properties can cause complications with the kidneys. That is in official scientific literature also. AcetylCoA is involved in this process and overloading that and the transferases associated with detoxing it can cause problems.

I can't believe you think the kidneys just excrete things without being induced to do so. We would pee out everything if that was the case including all enzymes and minerals and vitamins.

The article was meant to show commonly educated people some of the properties. It took me two years of looking up all the words in scientific research to understand it and another two years to understand how things work in the body. I might be up to the knowledge of a metabolic specialist, but not up to the knowlege of some people. My main research is in metabolics and the relation to life, meaning I have to study metabolics in the plants and animals we eat also. It's kind of worthless knowledge to understand what they are trying to do with GMO but it is necessary to evaluate changes in our food to see if there is a possible problem. Then I look up to see if there is evidence out there to show if my conclusions are relevant. Many times they aren't many times they are.

Number one thing, GMO Soy is not needed, we should not be consuming much soy and neither should our livestock. It is not a good substance to eat. It is a scam created by someone who wanted to make profits from it. The glyphosate is not a good substance if consumed on a regular basis. It is now plaguing our food supply. Evidence showing it's safety is way less scientific and relevant than the article is. It sure looks like a high level deception is going on with that.

Evidence that shows glyphosate is bad is being discounted by the people who approved glyphosate in this country, they are trying to protect their asses and not accepting anything that could lead to their getting in trouble. They accept evidence only from people that agree with their conclusions. Reinforcing your beliefs, even though they are not correct is what humans seem to be good at.

Go ahead, eat all the glyphosate foods you want to, I did not believe it was bad before I researched it thoroughly, and I still feel it will not cause too much problem if a tiny amount of it is consumed. The diuretic fluoride in water will not stimulate people to pee, it is the wrong type of fluoride for that purpose. Got to drink coffee for that.

For a start, nowhere did I say anything about anything being excreted by the kidneys, there are several other pathways for excretion so please don't try to put words into my mouth.
Glyphosate isn't broken down by anything into anything.
It is excreted in its whole form although it can bind to other excretae.

I think you're getting confused in that in some animals, in high doses (remember that) glyphosate can impact their metabolic processes but in humans it's marked as unnecessary and passed for excretion.
Tell me the name of the compound which does that (here's a clue, it's not AcetylCoA).
Again, it isn't metabolised.

"Synthetic means nothing other than it may not be identified by some people's metabolism and float around.".
No it doesn't.
It means it has been synthesized, generally taken to have been made in a lab.
It's not a good idea to have your own meanings for words, that's not how communication works.

The article is meant to sucker people in who have little or no scientific knowledge.
It seems to have worked.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Where's the study showing glyphosate in vaccines?

Its apparently in the works. However, Pubmed will not publish it untill its peer reviewed, fact checked etc.

I'm quite skeptical because researchers (I work with alot of them) are CIA like in keeping results to themselves until they feel its a slam dunk. Premature leakage of conclusions can and do result in ruined careers and reputation etc. Why would This guy would "leak" premature conclusions that could hurt him down the road.

Pubmed publish studies and articles whether they've been peer-reviewed or not.
They'll even publish withdrawn articles after they've been dismissed by peer-review so having an article in Pubmed means nothing.

a reply to: Pardon?

I don't think PubMed actually publishes anything. Do they? More of an index.

Publishers of journals can submit their citations to NCBI and then provide access to the full-text of articles at journal web sites using LinkOut.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: 727Sky
They can not keep these studies hidden forever!

They didn't www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... All of his works have been published once peer reviewed. That's how it works. Refreshing to have actual science to discuss as opposed to ill researched slogans, concepts, or flat out anti vax strawmen.

The paper in question is quite interesting. its a tough read but there are alot of interesting items IMHO

Kind of like mercury in Tuna, it make sense that we would find residues in eggs, milk etc.

The link between glyphosate and the increasing problem of resistant bacteria should also be investigated further

The "study" in your link concerning glyphosate isn't a study in the scientific term.
It's a collation of assumptions and unconnected data presented in a way to help confound those who aren't scientifically minded.
His cohort, Seneff, does this particularly often especially with her DNA in vaccines "studies".
Here's a good examination of it.
www.haciendapublishing.com...

Ok, been doing more research and I decided to look at agriculture to see just how much of this and how the farmers determine when to use glyphospate. Germany has banned it preharvest on grains now but most countries haven't. It is the farmers choice as to at what point it is applied, too early and it can accumulate in the grain. All the grains are not ready at the same time, it is an opinion that determines it's application

Here are some videos.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Those are fairly short.

Another video showing a possibility of adverse effects that can cause some problems by having increased glyphosphate in the food chain. This video is much longer, over an hour. This theory needs a lot more research. The fact that glyphosate is used a way lot more since the nineties is important. This is circumstantial evidence but It is important to consider this, the Germans did.

www.youtube.com...

Learning what is happening along with evidence from my genetics that I cannot properly detox chemistry like glyphosate and triclosan I have now decided to go all organic on my wheat flours. The organic wheat flour is not that much more expensive and it makes a lot better tasting product. I will need to find an organic bread flour though, we have been buying organic regular flour for a year now but not the bread flour. Since I make almost all of our own bread, this would be a good thing. All the other flour grains we buy are organic and they have excellent flavor, Barley, Rye, and Oat flours are the three other flours we buy.

With this new research I have done I now am going to make changes, I was not aware of how the preharvest sprays could be absorbed by the plants. Some farmers probably will make sure to do it right, but profit determines how things are done. A wet fall prediction may cause a farmer to push it a little to make sure he has grains. From side research I found that very little testing on glyphosate residue is done on grains. If levels are elevated they average the numbers. So what flour are you getting in your bag, I am sure your bag was not specifically tested.



glyphosphate testing has mostly been done by Monsanto funded research. Not much research has been done on roundup, just on glyphosate. Adjuvant properties of other chemicals in roundup can make glyphosate much more of a problem. They need to test the whole product, not individual chemicals. If you mix two safe chemicals together like bleach and Ammonia, the resulting gas is not safe. Ammonia is considered safe yet ammonia gas can kill you by binding the oxygen processing ability of cells.

I will eliminate as much of the glyphosate chemistry as feasible out of my diet. Another thing, roundup is also has pesticide and miticide properties which can effect our body processes, but since it is not listed as such it does not need to be tested as to the problems associated with that. It does have some irreversible effect on acetylcholinesterase like pesticides have. Irreversible only applies to the life of an individual cell, so that can be corrected if you abstain from consumption eventually.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Ok, been doing more research and I decided to look at agriculture to see just how much of this and how the farmers determine when to use glyphospate. Germany has banned it preharvest on grains now but most countries haven't. It is the farmers choice as to at what point it is applied, too early and it can accumulate in the grain. All the grains are not ready at the same time, it is an opinion that determines it's application

Here are some videos.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Those are fairly short.

Another video showing a possibility of adverse effects that can cause some problems by having increased glyphosphate in the food chain. This video is much longer, over an hour. This theory needs a lot more research. The fact that glyphosate is used a way lot more since the nineties is important. This is circumstantial evidence but It is important to consider this, the Germans did.

www.youtube.com...

Learning what is happening along with evidence from my genetics that I cannot properly detox chemistry like glyphosate and triclosan I have now decided to go all organic on my wheat flours. The organic wheat flour is not that much more expensive and it makes a lot better tasting product. I will need to find an organic bread flour though, we have been buying organic regular flour for a year now but not the bread flour. Since I make almost all of our own bread, this would be a good thing. All the other flour grains we buy are organic and they have excellent flavor, Barley, Rye, and Oat flours are the three other flours we buy.

With this new research I have done I now am going to make changes, I was not aware of how the preharvest sprays could be absorbed by the plants. Some farmers probably will make sure to do it right, but profit determines how things are done. A wet fall prediction may cause a farmer to push it a little to make sure he has grains. From side research I found that very little testing on glyphosate residue is done on grains. If levels are elevated they average the numbers. So what flour are you getting in your bag, I am sure your bag was not specifically tested.



glyphosphate testing has mostly been done by Monsanto funded research. Not much research has been done on roundup, just on glyphosate. Adjuvant properties of other chemicals in roundup can make glyphosate much more of a problem. They need to test the whole product, not individual chemicals. If you mix two safe chemicals together like bleach and Ammonia, the resulting gas is not safe. Ammonia is considered safe yet ammonia gas can kill you by binding the oxygen processing ability of cells.

I will eliminate as much of the glyphosate chemistry as feasible out of my diet. Another thing, roundup is also has pesticide and miticide properties which can effect our body processes, but since it is not listed as such it does not need to be tested as to the problems associated with that. It does have some irreversible effect on acetylcholinesterase like pesticides have. Irreversible only applies to the life of an individual cell, so that can be corrected if you abstain from consumption eventually.

Thanks for the videos, they didn't answer the questions I asked above though.

And this line from you underlines your comprehension level and what can happen if you self-teach...
"If you mix two safe chemicals together like bleach and Ammonia, the resulting gas is not safe. Ammonia is considered safe yet ammonia gas can kill you."
Bleach isn't safe.
Ammonia isn't safe.
They are both classed as extremely hazardous substances.
Mixing the two doesn't create ammonia gas either, it creates chloramine vapour (along with some chlorine gas).

a reply to: Pardon?

You made an improper association in your comment, I never said that the gas from mixing the ammonia and chlorine was ammonia gas. That was two different sentences. I learned about Ammonia gas a while back from talking to someone who was working in a sausage factory, that is a different topic.

Both Ammonia and Chlorine used in cleaners around the house are considered safe in the concentrations in the cleaners. but they cannot be used together without causing problems.

I doubt if your IQ is even close to mine, I am in the top ninety nine percent of the population and can comprehend most stuff now that I have learned the scientific terminology. Go argue with someone of your own intellect.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

You made an improper association in your comment, I never said that the gas from mixing the ammonia and chlorine was ammonia gas. That was two different sentences. I learned about Ammonia gas a while back from talking to someone who was working in a sausage factory, that is a different topic.

Both Ammonia and Chlorine used in cleaners around the house are considered safe in the concentrations in the cleaners. but they cannot be used together without causing problems.

I doubt if your IQ is even close to mine, I am in the top ninety nine percent of the population and can comprehend most stuff now that I have learned the scientific terminology. Go argue with someone of your own intellect.

Point taken on your first paragraph although you need to explain yourself better.
That will come with better comprehension of the subject.

Ammonia and chlorine are not considered safe around the house. They have big red "X's" on the side of the bottle warning you that they can be hazardous. That's not the definition of safe.

As for your last paragraph...
Whether or not you have an IQ higher than mine is irrelevant, it's knowledge and comprehension which is important and you lack severely on both counts.
Also the fact that you have made this puerile statement probably suggests your IQ isn't as high as you like to think it is.

a reply to: Pardon?

You live in a box. You just follow the lead of others. You need to look at all sides of an issue, there is evidence both ways and it takes time but researching both sides does produce conclusions which with further research can often be verified.

There are a lot of people spreading crap out there so they can profit or gain prestige by finding something. That is why there is so much conflicting evidence out there, someone creates evidence to reinforce their beliefs or fill their pocketbooks and it conflicts with evidence by others.

I study both sides, or sometimes four or five interpretations to see what they have in common. I do not accept just one viewpoint. Sometimes the initial viewpoint that is widely accepted is correct but often that is cut by occams razor to be accepted also. Half the time consensus of the day is wrong, misled by the cutting that makes it fit what people believe.

If you want to believe big Pharma, go right ahead, I spend a real lot of time investigating the exact way their meds work and what possible alternative ways can accomplish the same thing without meds. Glyphosate and other pesticides do cause some diseases. They also can cause issues requiring acetylcholine inhibitor medicines. A quarter of the people in this country are presently taking those meds. They have been blaming the problem on stuff like cigarettes and coffee, but those are just temporary and that would not require medicines, in fact tobacco has some neutralizing ability.

I can't take medicine for my epilepsy, I am intolerant. I can use foods and avoidance of foods to control it which means I need to study this subject and also the effects of the chemicals they use to grow foods.

I only eat about twenty persent of my diet organic, I am not sold on the organic classification, two many organic chemicals are used to treat their fields. Plant defense chemistry can be just as strong or stronger than man made chemistry if concentrated.

I am not limited to believing what one group of people say. I can listen to all sides. I actually belonged to a physics site before where I intermingled with people who worked in that field, I chatted with people who worked at Cern and one at NASA. I evaluate everything and hardly ever take in information from people without verifying it by thoroughly investigating things. I have blown away my past beliefs a lot of time finding my whole path was wrong, I should have known better than to follow the misinformed people in society, especially the people who think they are educated because they have read propaganda in scientific literature. You cannot trust some of this stuff, every bit of it has to be investigated and evaluated to make a conclusion.

Consensus of the time is a scam created by those who will profit by it. Vaccines don't work, the nasal vaccine they have been using on kids is only three percent efficient and the regular flu vaccines are only fifty one percent efficient, some people who do not get vaccines never get the flu. I know quite a few people who don't get the flu and don't get the flu shot, me included. The highest level of evidence actually explains this. I found it in Pharma and medical literature. They are trying to design a vaccine that mimics the innate immune response some people have, eighty five percent of people have a defunct immune system, normal is not good. Many of those need to worry about the flu, I do not and neither do my kids or grandchildren, the risk is low. Shots will not help, they hurt us because of cytokine storms they create.

I don't care if eighty five percent of people are defective, I can't easily get the flu nor can I carry it, I fight it swiftly and get a little tired for a day and that's it. People who need the shots may need them but do not force us who have superior immunity to get sick from shots or suffer getting anxiety or depression from pushing glyphosate and pesticides on our food. Look at the first video I showed on how they determine when to spray the roundup on wheat and consider whether a farmers timing because of weather will effect his spraying to minimize crop loss. Recommendations are skirted because farmers need those crops to survive.

I know people and how they think. I know what people will do to survive and what others will do just to get riches. I do not trust any conclusions completely unless I research how they made those conclusions.

You can go on accepting what these people say is real without investigating it, go head enjoy the food covered in roundup. They have been pushing roundup for years to clear weeds for potatoes and I read that they recently found that roundup lowers potato production and delayed the plant emergence. The salesmen lied to the farmers and cost the farmer profits that pay their expenses. The state of Michigan and DOA are actually listing this now, they have different classified weed killers for potatoes that don't effect the potato yeild so bad. Right there were lies spewed by Monsanto.

Go ahead and believe these big chemical companies that push deceit. There are some legit chemical companies, but not Monsanto.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

You live in a box. You just follow the lead of others. You need to look at all sides of an issue, there is evidence both ways and it takes time but researching both sides does produce conclusions which with further research can often be verified.

There are a lot of people spreading crap out there so they can profit or gain prestige by finding something. That is why there is so much conflicting evidence out there, someone creates evidence to reinforce their beliefs or fill their pocketbooks and it conflicts with evidence by others.

I study both sides, or sometimes four or five interpretations to see what they have in common. I do not accept just one viewpoint. Sometimes the initial viewpoint that is widely accepted is correct but often that is cut by occams razor to be accepted also. Half the time consensus of the day is wrong, misled by the cutting that makes it fit what people believe.

If you want to believe big Pharma, go right ahead, I spend a real lot of time investigating the exact way their meds work and what possible alternative ways can accomplish the same thing without meds. Glyphosate and other pesticides do cause some diseases. They also can cause issues requiring acetylcholine inhibitor medicines. A quarter of the people in this country are presently taking those meds. They have been blaming the problem on stuff like cigarettes and coffee, but those are just temporary and that would not require medicines, in fact tobacco has some neutralizing ability.

I can't take medicine for my epilepsy, I am intolerant. I can use foods and avoidance of foods to control it which means I need to study this subject and also the effects of the chemicals they use to grow foods.

I only eat about twenty persent of my diet organic, I am not sold on the organic classification, two many organic chemicals are used to treat their fields. Plant defense chemistry can be just as strong or stronger than man made chemistry if concentrated.

I am not limited to believing what one group of people say. I can listen to all sides. I actually belonged to a physics site before where I intermingled with people who worked in that field, I chatted with people who worked at Cern and one at NASA. I evaluate everything and hardly ever take in information from people without verifying it by thoroughly investigating things. I have blown away my past beliefs a lot of time finding my whole path was wrong, I should have known better than to follow the misinformed people in society, especially the people who think they are educated because they have read propaganda in scientific literature. You cannot trust some of this stuff, every bit of it has to be investigated and evaluated to make a conclusion.

Consensus of the time is a scam created by those who will profit by it. Vaccines don't work, the nasal vaccine they have been using on kids is only three percent efficient and the regular flu vaccines are only fifty one percent efficient, some people who do not get vaccines never get the flu. I know quite a few people who don't get the flu and don't get the flu shot, me included. The highest level of evidence actually explains this. I found it in Pharma and medical literature. They are trying to design a vaccine that mimics the innate immune response some people have, eighty five percent of people have a defunct immune system, normal is not good. Many of those need to worry about the flu, I do not and neither do my kids or grandchildren, the risk is low. Shots will not help, they hurt us because of cytokine storms they create.

I don't care if eighty five percent of people are defective, I can't easily get the flu nor can I carry it, I fight it swiftly and get a little tired for a day and that's it. People who need the shots may need them but do not force us who have superior immunity to get sick from shots or suffer getting anxiety or depression from pushing glyphosate and pesticides on our food. Look at the first video I showed on how they determine when to spray the roundup on wheat and consider whether a farmers timing because of weather will effect his spraying to minimize crop loss. Recommendations are skirted because farmers need those crops to survive.

I know people and how they think. I know what people will do to survive and what others will do just to get riches. I do not trust any conclusions completely unless I research how they made those conclusions.

You can go on accepting what these people say is real without investigating it, go head enjoy the food covered in roundup. They have been pushing roundup for years to clear weeds for potatoes and I read that they recently found that roundup lowers potato production and delayed the plant emergence. The salesmen lied to the farmers and cost the farmer profits that pay their expenses. The state of Michigan and DOA are actually listing this now, they have different classified weed killers for potatoes that don't effect the potato yeild so bad. Right there were lies spewed by Monsanto.

Go ahead and believe these big chemical companies that push deceit. There are some legit chemical companies, but not Monsanto.

You should research Dunning-Kruger.
It'll be right up your street.