Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Another Vaccine “Bombshell” Glyphosate – Think Monsanto’s Roundup – Confirmed in Most Vaccines
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... onfirmed-in-most-vaccines.html
Published: Sep 6, 2016
Author: Catherine Frompovich
Post Date: 2016-09-07 10:49:59 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1359
Comments: 5
Research scientist Anthony Samsel has confirmed that glyphosate, a key active chemical in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup®, has been found in most vaccines! In this video, we hear Dr Samsel reciting his findings. Additionally, Dr Samsel sent a letter to his Congressional Senator from New Hampshire wherein he gives Senator Shaheen permission to share his laboratory data on glyphosate-contaminated vaccines with “all members of Congress and the public.” Will she have the presence of conscience to do what U.S. Congressman Bill Posey of Florida did when, in July of 2015, he went before Congress to ask for a congressional investigation into the science, fraud and collusion regarding the MMR vaccine—Autism connection found in African-American boys under three years of age, as exposed in 2014 by CDC epidemiologist William Thompson, PhD, one of the co-authors of the CDC report which eliminated that pertinent data and documentation from the CDC’s published information? One of the most important biochemical reasons for getting to the ‘bottom’ of the glyphosate fiasco being perpetrated upon U.S. and global citizens by the chemical and agricultural industries is that glyphosate is supposedly ‘safe’! Nothing is further from the scientific facts. Here is one specific reason: Not only are humans exposed to glyphosate from numerous sources, e.g., herbicides, pesticides, sprays, GMO-crops/foods/ingredients in processed foods as RESIDUES, we now have confirmed scientific research and numerical data that glyphosate is present in VACCINES, which are injected into infants, toddlers, teens, and adults? Compounding the above science is the fact that no one at the U.S. CDC/FDA even is considering the most elemental scientific theorem: chemical interaction, e.g., vaccine ingredients and giving nine vaccines at one time! In high school chemistry aren’t students taught the importance of chemical interactions, especially when mixing several chemicals in a laboratory beaker? What can happen? An explosion! A similar chemical reaction occurs within the human body — the largest living, working test tube on earth, however it causes adverse health effects, not an explosion. And yet those who should know how science and chemicals work synergistically continue to pollute the human organism with more and more toxins, including nanoparticles which also are in vaccines! As “defense” for the above statements I have made, I direct readers to the 2014 published article “Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles” and what’s stated in the Abstract: Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations. They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle, which is usually tested alone. We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines (HepG2, HEK293, and JEG3). Glyphosate, isoproturon, fluroxypyr, pirimicarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, tebuconazole, epoxiconazole, and prochloraz constitute, respectively, the active principles of 3 major herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides. We measured mitochondrial activities, membrane degradations, and caspases 3/7 activities. Fungicides were the most toxic from concentrations 300–600 times lower than agricultural dilutions, followed by herbicides and then insecticides, with very similar profiles in all cell types. Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone. Furthermore, glyphosate is known to “promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells.” [1] However, glyphosate can be only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ because according to researchers investigating “formulations as mixtures,” “Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants [the same as vaccines use adjuvants] that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious.” [1] Although the above articles talk about pesticides, I think everyone regards “pesticides” as any chemical in that category as a “bug killer” or “insect killer.” Pesticides are a class of chemicals designed to kill pests (rodents, insects, or plants) that may affect agricultural crops or carry diseases like malaria and typhus. [2] [CJF emphasis] The fact that those chemicals are designed TO KILL indicates the harms they can do to any LIVING organism, regardless of exposure or dilution! There are some man-made chemicals that can be diluted to the ratio equivalent of a whiskey-shot-glass of chemical to a large swimming pool of water and still be deadly! Why there are so many toxic chemicals deliberately placed into vaccines defies my knowledge of science, medicine, nutrition, research, and human empathy on the part of those who are supposed to be ‘protectors of health’, the medical profession, i.e., doctors, nurses, researchers, and the pharmaceutical industry. Now we have more and definitive confirmation that glyphosate is in most vaccines that are given to infants and children. What more proof do we need for Congress, including the President of the USA if black lives matter, to demand and to perform an independent, thorough investigation (and/or criminal trial) with outside independent researchers testifying — not Big Pharma’s lackey scientists — to get to the bottom of why so many children are being chemically abused — legally too! — and why humanity’s future generations are being deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What’s happened to the Nuremberg Code [3]? Everyone talks about and demands their “human rights” [4], however, the most fundamental of human rights, i.e., not being poisoned daily [air, water and food] or by mandatory vaccine injections, are not being addressed and guaranteed by anyone. Why? Shouldn’t we make that a primary issue and right, especially in view of the CDC’s proposed rule to forcefully place citizens into quarantine and receive vaccines ‘irregardless’ with the CDC’s self-assumed rule making now that we know glyphosate is in vaccines? References: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283 Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
What will Senator Shaheen do? 
Granted, there are some medical professionals who do not partake in the poisoning of children and expose the chemical horrors of vaccines but they are vilified, even some supposedly may have been “offed” for their expository work.
[2] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxchemicallisting.asp?sysid=31
[3] https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf
[4] http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues?gclid=CIvmse_Z-M4CFcYfhgodGT4JvA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Well, I am sure big pharma and the chemical industries don't manufacture anything that is not "safe and effective" HA HA. I do not go to church every time the doors are opened, but I love Jesus Christ. I am only human and fail Him daily. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified on a cross, died for my sins and rose from the dead and that He loves us dearly, and is faithful to forgive us of our sins. But He says that if you deny me in front of your friends I will deny you in front of my Father. Can I get an Amen!
Glyphosate in the body binds to heavy metals and minerals, which means that it is not secreted. It builds up over time instead of flushing out.
Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Let's see. A Senior Research Scientist in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence and a co-author with advanced degrees in Electrical Engineering. A non-paper published on 18 April 2013, in a pay-to-publish physics journal. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416 http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf [ Review Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases† Anthony Samsel 1 and Stephanie Seneff 2,* 1 Independent Scientist and Consultant, Deerfield, NH 03037, USA 2 Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA † Note added by the Publisher: The editors of the journal have been alerted to concerns over potential bias in opinions and bias in the choice of citation sources used in this article. We note that the authors stand by the content as published. Since the nature of the claims against the paper concern speculation and opinion, and not fraud or academic misconduct, the editors would like to issue an Expression of Concern to make readers aware that the approach to collating literature citations for this article was likely not systematic and may not reflect the spectrum of opinions on the issues covered by the article. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles. * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Received: 15 January 2013 / Revised: 10 April 2013 / Accepted: 10 April 2013 / Published: 18 April 2013 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html Condemning Monsanto With Bad Science Is Dumb Tamar Haspel Did you see the latest indictment of Monsanto making the rounds? It’s a “peer-reviewed” paper in the journal Entropy, co-authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, blaming glyphosate, the compound in the herbicide Roundup, for virtually all the ills that can befall us. But here’s the thing — they made it up. Or, all but. They say, “We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is a ‘textbook example’ of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.” Exogenous semiotic entropy! That sounds serious. Google it, though, and you find that those three words occur together in only place. This paper. They made it up. At first, I thought the whole thing was one of those jargon-laden academic hoaxes but, alas, it isn’t. Slog through their argument (and, please, if you take this seriously, read the paper!), and you find it boils down to two things. Glyphosate, they claim, 1) inhibits CYP enzymes, which are active in lots of metabolic processes, and 2) disrupts gut bacteria, which are susceptible to its mechanism (disrupting the shikimate pathway), even though humans are not. Therefore, any condition that involves metabolic processes or gut bacteria must be affected by glyphosate exposure. QED! Here’s the list of ills they blame, at least in part, on Roundup: inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, Alzheimer’s, autism, anorexia, dementia, depression, Parkinson’s, reproductive issues, liver diseases and cancer. The evidence for these mechanisms, and their impact on human health, is all but nonexistent. The authors base their claim about CYP enzymes on two studies, one of liver cells and one of placental cells, which report endocrine disruptions when those cells are exposed to glyphosate. Neither study is CYP-specific (The effect of pesticides on CYP enzymes, by contrast, has been studied specifically.) As for the gut bacteria, there appears to be no research at all on glyphosate’s effect on them. Samsel and Seneff didn’t conduct any studies. They don’t seem interested in the levels at which humans are actually exposed to glyphosate. They simply speculated that, if anyone, anywhere, found that glyphosate could do anything in any organism, that thing must also be happening in humans everywhere. I’d like to meet the “peers” who “reviewed” this. After reading the paper, I had to wonder — who are Samsel and Seneff? Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. Her advanced degrees are in electrical engineering. She describes herself as having “recently become interested in the effect of drugs and diet on health and nutrition.” Samsel describes himself as an “Independent Scientist and Consultant,” and, for the last 37 years, has run Anthony Samsel Environmental and Public Health Services, which does “Charitable community investigations of industrial polluters.” I think it’s fair to say they probably went into this with a point of view. There’s real danger in bad science like this. Industrial agriculture has created a lot of environmental problems. We have to find ways to reform our food system, but shoddy research only helps Monsanto. If we base our objections on papers like this one, we won’t — and we shouldn’t — be taken seriously.
http://www.sci-phy.com/detecting-bogus-scientific-journals/ May 12, 2013 Following on a previous post discussing how bogus magazines pretending to be scientific journals can affect the judgement of non-specialists, a brief 5 steps method to pin-point dubious publications is described. This method is not infallible and you must remain cautious, as pseudoscience may still dodge the test. Case study: Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463 Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases 1 – Is the journal a well-established journal such as Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc.? Articles in entropyprestigious journals can generally be trusted because these articles go through a tough review process (sometimes they publish rubbish but it is uncommon and the rotten egg is discovered sooner or later). Scientists love publishing in well-established journals. You can look at the “impact factor” of the journal (You can Google it) set a lower threshold of between 3 to 5 (Though in some not-very-popular areas you could go much lower than 3). [green] Entropy is not a well-established journal for general science or biomedicine (I doubt it is for any discipline; its impact factor is 1.18). It absolutely doesn’t mean that the article will be flawed but it means we will have to be careful and follow the next steps. 2 – Check authors’ affiliations. Do they work in a respectable University? Or do they claim to work in University of Lala Land or no university at all? [yellow alert] One of the authors is an “independent scientist”. We are not in the 17th century anymore. Science is a very expensive enterprise and I would be amazed if anyone — apart from Russian oligarchs, Arab princes or Bill Gate’s descendants — could be an “independent scientist”. The last author however works at a very prestigious University so we can carry on reading. (Still weird…) 3 – Check the Journal’s speciality and the article’s research topic. Are the people in the journal knowledgeable in the area the article deals with? [orange alert] Here we have the first big problem: The journal, Entropy, describes itself as “an international and interdisciplinary open access journal of entropy and information studies”. Originally, Entropy was a subject of study of thermodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with heat and energy (I wrote about thermodynamics in the past; also see Oxford dictionary). When did physicists (or mathematicians) become experts in the area of “Gut Microbiome and Pathways to Modern Diseases”? Is it not the business of medics? Or biologists? Or biochemists? 4 – Check the claims in the title and summary of the article. Are they reasonable for the journal publishing them? This is very important; for example, if scientists find a cure for AIDS their article will be published in one of the most prestigious journals. Maybe even in the two most sought after journals of the scientific world at the same time; it happened after the completion of the human genome (1, 2). The discovery of the HIV was published in just one of the journals but in 2 separate articles at the same time (3, 4). There is no way that something really important will escape the radar of the editors. [red alert] This article is attributing pretty much all the chronic diseases of the modern world to a single agent, glyphosate. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if just by getting rid of one chemical we could be as healthy and happy as we have never been? A single agent! If this were true, it would go straight into Nature Magazine and the scientific world would have gone mad before you could even notice the article. 5 – Do the claims at least make sense? [red bomb] (this has got to be rubbish) Here we really hit it. The authors state in the summary that glyphosate is responsible for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Ah! Also gastrointestinal disorders. Glyphosate responsible for obesity, really? Not potato-coachness; not over eating; not driving instead of walking 100 metres: glyphosate. Similar questions should be asked for all the other diseases. It is also important to mention that glyphosate was invented years after there was already obese people and people with cancer and people with heart disease, etc. Anyway, for me the best example of things not making sense is the sentence: “glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy”. What?! All modern diseases are caused by semiotic entropy? These sure are 9 words picked at random and scrambled to form a sentence-like string of words; Individual words make sense; the sentence does not. You can read the article where everything (except clear evidence) is shown here. The authors paid 1200 Swiss Francs (about £820 or $1280) to have it published there. The main experimental evidence that they present against this evil “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy is a widely discredited paper published in a journal with an impact factor of 2.999 (yes 2.999). As an educated and scientifically trained individual I think it is a laugh and I believe it is so poor that even non-scientists will laugh. But just in case non-scientists could take it seriously, I wrote the above guide to detect pseudoscientific papers at a glance.
Is There Room at the Table For an Organic Food Eating Skeptic? Why GMO Supporters Should Embrace Labels When Media Uncritically Cover Pseudoscience By Keith Kloor | April 26, 2013 8:52 am Anti-biotech activists, like their fellow travelers in the anti-vaccine movement, are masters at pseudoscience. As I’ve previously discussed, the really clever GMO opponents put a veneer of science on their propaganda. One recent example that an anti-GMO website approvingly pointed to was so obviously absurd that I was sure it would be ignored by media. It’s a paper that suggests a chemical in Roundup, a widely used Monsanto herbicide, “can remarkably explain a great number of the diseases and conditions that are prevalent in the modern industrialized world,” such as “inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations.” [UPDATE: As someone puts it on Twitter, the paper “reads like it was scribbled on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.”] The paper is by two authors with dubious credentials and is such a mashup of pseudoscience and gibberish that actual scientists have been unable to make sense of it. As one of them also noted, the paper is published in a “low-tier pay-for-play journal.” The authors of the paper conclude that glyphosate, an ingredient used in Roundup “may be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.” This sweeping claim, combined with where it’s made and the backgrounds of the authors (one who works in computer science), should trigger alarm bells in anyone with a functioning brain, particularly journalists on the look-out for a good story. Alas, a Reuters reporter took the bait: Except it’s “not a study,” as plant geneticist Kevin Folta noted on Twitter, and “no data was presented.” When he saw the Reuters article, Folta was incredulous: 25 Apr 13 Why the hell is @reuters publishing an article about that BS glyphosate study in journal Entropy?! http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0DC22F20130425?irpc=932 … cc @keithkloor - - - - - - - - - - Kevin Folta @kevinfolta @r343l @Reuters @keithkloor Wow, major fail for Reuters. They just propagated absolute trash and lent credibility to fear mongers. 8:15 PM - 25 Apr 2013 Some of his peers tweeted a similar reaction. Andrew Kniss, a University of Wyoming agronomist, wondered: “Why are they [Reuters] calling it a ‘study’? There was absolutely no data.” He added that the paper “carries as much scientific credibility as creationism.” Hey, it was good enough for Reuters, whose uncritical coverage of it now gives the paper a veneer of legitimacy to readers (many who will use social media to share the link to the Reuters story) around the world. UPDATE: Wow, via a commenter, I’ve learned this about one of the authors of the paper. UPDATE: In 2012 I critiqued a similarly flawed story by the same Reuters reporter.
getting to the ‘bottom’ of the glyphosate fiasco being perpetrated upon U.S. and global citizens by the chemical and agricultural industries is that glyphosate is supposedly ‘safe’! Nothing is further from the scientific facts.
#2. To: U don't know me (#1)
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416
THE BLOG
Huffington Post
04/26/2013 12:51 pm ET | Updated Jun 26, 2013
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
A guide to detecting bogus scientific journals
Ariel Poliandri
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
Collide-a-Scape
Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.
Rachael @r343l
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]