Vaccine-glyphosate link exposed by Anthony Samsel

I originally Posted this as a reply to one of our members in www.abovetopsecret.com... thread but I figured it deserved a thread of its' own.

Ammo for the anti-vaccinations crowd or something the all seeing well meaning government should be seriously looking at and intervening; you decide. The article list some of the vaccines that tested positive for Glyphosate...
farmwars.info...

Scientists Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff have just gotten the fifth peer reviewed paper on Glyphosate published. Its named “Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins”. The interview on that has been covered in the previous blog.

The latest bombshell to come from Anthony Samsel is from the sixth paper, which is not yet published, but whose supporting data is already making waves – various popular vaccines are contaminated with glyphosate.

How? Well, vaccine makers sometimes use animal byproducts in vaccines, products such as chicken egg protein or gelatine that comes from bones. And if those vaccine makers are using animals that come out of factory farms, chances are they are fed GMO and glyphosate laced feed. If so, they would pick up Glyphosate into their system just as we humans do. Therefore, egg protein and gelatine made from these animals may also contain glyphosate, which in turn would then contaminate the vaccines that use these products. Finally, people, or animals, vaccinated with these products would have glyphosate directly injected into them, and will in due course have glyphosate initiating a cascade of diseases.

a reply to: 727Sky

Excellent!

They can not keep these studies hidden forever!

And once pandora's box is opened on vaccines, people may wake up to the horrific Eugenicist agenda that lurks behind big pharma/big agri and their continuous experimentation of their perceived "subjects"!

a reply to: 727Sky

Huh.
Speculation piled on more speculation. A solid foundation of crap.
Good enough for me. Vaccines are baaaaaaad.

Where's the study showing glyphosate in vaccines?

a reply to: Phage

Gosh didn't you see the pictures of the letter and the youtube video?!

a reply to: Sremmos80
Yes.
But I didn't see the results from independent labs.

a reply to: 727Sky

From the article in your OP:

various popular vaccines are contaminated with glyphosate. How? Well, vaccine makers sometimes use animal byproducts in vaccines, products such as chicken egg protein or gelatine that comes from bones. And if those vaccine makers are using animals that come out of factory farms, chances are they are fed GMO and glyphosate laced feed. If so, they would pick up Glyphosate into their system just as we humans do. Therefore, egg protein and gelatine made from these animals may also contain glyphosate, which in turn would then contaminate the vaccines that use these products.

Please provide the studies that actually show glyphosate was ever found in vaccines, as the link in your OP fails to do so.

Also, many things require animal byproducts (insulin, bread, medicine capsules, yogurt, ice cream etc etc). Why only focus on vaccines?

Ok, try this link.

thesciencepost.com...

originally posted by: flatbush71
Ok, try this link.

thesciencepost.com...

!! hahaha excellent!
I love Stephen Colbert's description of the antivax movement.

a reply to: flatbush71

from your link....

This is a great deal for both parties involved,” said Monsanto CEO, Judas Luciferr. “We get to sell off some of our glyphosate inventory and Big Pharma gets to make more people sick, and therefor lifetime customers, with their vaccines.” Some critics of the move argue that glyphosate is not safe to be injected, but Monsanto countered by saying it is not safe to eat either and we’re already doing that.

That very funny, so funny it hurts...literally....

I wouldn't think that the glyphosphate found in a vaccine would be enough to do much. I do think glyphosphate is a problem and that it is not good to use it as much as they use it now.

I am not fond of vaccinations, they have exploited them and are giving too many to people. But this association is very weak and there is not enough evidence to say it is relevant. This may have been created by the Pro-vaxers to get more people to believe that all anti-vax info is ridiculous. That tactic is used quite a bit by devious people

originally posted by: flatbush71
Ok, try this link.

thesciencepost.com...

Man oh man that is some sick stuff... Must a a very poor attempt at a sick joke.... at least I hope it is !

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't think that the glyphosphate found in a vaccine would be enough to do much. I do think glyphosphate is a problem and that it is not good to use it as much as they use it now.

I am not fond of vaccinations, they have exploited them and are giving too many to people. But this association is very weak and there is not enough evidence to say it is relevant. "This may have been created by the Pro-vaxers to get more people to believe that all anti-vax info is ridiculous. That tactic is used quite a bit by devious people

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.

a reply to: Pardon?

Is that the right paper? It doesn't tie vaccines for humans together with the effects of glyphosates in lab animals.

That's the first 'peer-reviewed paper' I've seen that comes in coloured paper and includes CAPS-LOCK phrasing. First one that includes highly emotive language and cute animal imagery. It has 19 redundant pages and the rest could have been scaled down like in conventional papers. Doing that might have left room for the (yawn boring) usual categories like methods, discussions etc.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Pardon?

Is that the right paper? It doesn't tie vaccines for humans together with the effects of glyphosates in lab animals.

That's the first 'peer-reviewed paper' I've seen that comes in coloured paper and includes CAPS-LOCK phrasing. First one that includes highly emotive language and cute animal imagery. It has 19 redundant pages and the rest could have been scaled down like in conventional papers. Doing that might have left room for the (yawn boring) usual categories like methods, discussions etc.

But it's eye-catching...
Especially the picture of the deer at sunrise.
How could you not be convinced by that?

a reply to: Pardon?

It melted my heart 💕

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't think that the glyphosphate found in a vaccine would be enough to do much. I do think glyphosphate is a problem and that it is not good to use it as much as they use it now.

I am not fond of vaccinations, they have exploited them and are giving too many to people. But this association is very weak and there is not enough evidence to say it is relevant. "This may have been created by the Pro-vaxers to get more people to believe that all anti-vax info is ridiculous. That tactic is used quite a bit by devious people

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.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't think that the glyphosphate found in a vaccine would be enough to do much. I do think glyphosphate is a problem and that it is not good to use it as much as they use it now.

I am not fond of vaccinations, they have exploited them and are giving too many to people. But this association is very weak and there is not enough evidence to say it is relevant. "This may have been created by the Pro-vaxers to get more people to believe that all anti-vax info is ridiculous. That tactic is used quite a bit by devious people

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.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't think that the glyphosphate found in a vaccine would be enough to do much. I do think glyphosphate is a problem and that it is not good to use it as much as they use it now.

I am not fond of vaccinations, they have exploited them and are giving too many to people. But this association is very weak and there is not enough evidence to say it is relevant. "This may have been created by the Pro-vaxers to get more people to believe that all anti-vax info is ridiculous. That tactic is used quite a bit by devious people

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.

a reply to: Pardon?

The tactic used by anti-vax (and anti-science) isn't devious, it's pretty basic, they just lie.

So they use the same tactic as the pharmaceutical corporations and the CDC?

Who'da thunk?! Fight fire with fire, I guess.

I'll just leave this here...
www.bmj.com...

a reply to: rickymouse

You're wasting your time with 'Pardon?'. He's sucked up all the official storylines and is not capable of any critical thinking on this and other subjects. Whatever the corporations and their bought and paid for regulators say is best is where his positions lie.