glyphosate study

Help Support CattleToday:

sim.-ang.king

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
5,756
Reaction score
592
Location
Southern IL
But glyphosate doesn't affect the plants ability to absorb sugar, or create sugar. So your glycan would be the same at the time of death, sprayed or not.
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
You are making this too hard. Glypho stands for sugar sate stand for saturation. Whoever gave it the name really was telling what the product does. I know of 8 cell surface sugars. When a plant is saturated with it, it destroys the plants ability to absorb nutrients. When the soil contains the residue it can cause a reduction of the amout the cattle or people absorb due to the reduction of sugars being taken in. People and animals have trillions of cells and it would take time to destroy enough of them unless you were born today to parents who were already deficienct. One step further- it is well known now that vitamin d level is the rate the body regenerates. You could stand out in the sun until the cows come home but without enough glycans your body may not absorb the sulfur or zinc which is required to raise that level. Thus skin canccer.

Ok after so many years I learned all of this but the problem was even after flooding the body with Glycans and adding the plant based nutrients how does the body repair the damage from scar tissue build up from inflammation? You know the thing that causes heart disease lung disease pain from surgeries- it appears plant based fulvic acid. You cannot find one doctor other than maybe dr Ben Carson as I noticed he has something that increases intelligence and wondered if it could include this.

The study of sugars is glycobiology and if you end up in any major hospital they will send a doctor up to tell you they are working on it. They are trying to come out with synthetic so they can charge you an arm and leg because good food like raw milk does not pay the bills.
 

sim.-ang.king

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
5,756
Reaction score
592
Location
Southern IL
It's called Glyphosate because it's made from Gly, organic compound C3,H8,N,O5, Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and phosphate (P).
It has a simple sugar (glycol) so you can bind the hydrocarbon (Ethylene) to the solvent, monomethyl ether, which then is combined with phosphorus.
The name has nothing to do with it's mode of action, and saying that the word "sate" stands for saturation is just a conjuring of your own imagination, and pure ignorance.
 

bball

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
5
Location
Indiana
sim.-ang.king":15nv3eqi said:
But glyphosate doesn't affect the plants ability to absorb sugar, or create sugar. So your glycan would be the same at the time of death, sprayed or not.

This is exactly how I think of it. I would need to see the science that would demonstrate how glyphosate chemically alters the plants cellular wall/eliminates existing mono and polysaccharides, thereby eliminating the glycans available. I'm no biochemist, but I do understand chemical equations and understand chemical reactions.
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
sim.-ang.king":1hld3w82 said:
It's called Glyphosate because it's made from Gly, organic compound C3,H8,N,O5, Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and phosphate (P).
It has a simple sugar (glycol) so you can bind the hydrocarbon (Ethylene) to the solvent, monomethyl ether, which then is combined with phosphorus.
The name has nothing to do with it's mode of action, and saying that the word "sate" stands for saturation is just a conjuring of your own imagination, and pure ignorance.
You said it yourself. It has a simple sugar (glycan) and saturates with the items that destroy cell surface sugars. The name says it all.

Glycosylation is the enzymatic process that attaches sugars (glycans) to proteins, lipids, or other organic molecules. These attached sugars can be structural and/or functional. In their functional role, they server as antennae, interacting with cellular receptors and thus affecting cellular processes. Sugars attached to proteins (glycoproteins) server as signals in cellular communication, thus influencing processes involved in inflammation and immunological reactions.

Hope this helps
 

sim.-ang.king

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
5,756
Reaction score
592
Location
Southern IL
Highpoint":eaumg4cy said:
sim.-ang.king":eaumg4cy said:
It's called Glyphosate because it's made from Gly, organic compound C3,H8,N,O5, Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and phosphate (P).
It has a simple sugar (glycol) so you can bind the hydrocarbon (Ethylene) to the solvent, monomethyl ether, which then is combined with phosphorus.
The name has nothing to do with it's mode of action, and saying that the word "sate" stands for saturation is just a conjuring of your own imagination, and pure ignorance.
You said it yourself. It has a simple sugar (glycan) and saturates with the items that destroy cell surface sugars. The name says it all.

Glycosylation is the enzymatic process that attaches sugars (glycans) to proteins, lipids, or other organic molecules. These attached sugars can be structural and/or functional. In their functional role, they server as antennae, interacting with cellular receptors and thus affecting cellular processes. Sugars attached to proteins (glycoproteins) server as signals in cellular communication, thus influencing processes involved in inflammation and immunological reactions.

Hope this helps
10004048284_faab5cd94b.jpg



i-find-your-lack-of-reading-comprehension-disturbing.jpg
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
True Grit Farms":2y9yyj32 said:
Facts mean nothing to liberals.

I know as the only time I ran into those who would attack me like this was Monsanto product salesmen on LinkedIn. It's ok though some liberals change their minds and if not they donate to our school. I was on the educational foundation at the time when the money came in.
 

ChrisB

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,310
Reaction score
4
Location
MN
Kudos to you Highpoint for all the research you have done. Not saying this is the case with you, but one thing I've learned from people that are gung-ho about organic and natural foods is that they only will read the research of people they agree with. If you really want to know the truth, try to research both sides with an open mind and then draw your own conclusions. It's too bad money influences studies but I think University studies are less likely to be influenced than independent studies. If you think it is only Monsanto and companies like them paying money for desired results you are fooling yourself. There is a lot of money to be made in organic and natural foods. You think these Dr.'s giving these speeches and writing papers are only doing it to help people? They make their living pushing their ideas, you think they are going to give fair and balanced reports?
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
10,701
Reaction score
12
Location
Kentucky
ChrisB":2op4p35q said:
Kudos to you Highpoint for all the research you have done. Not saying this is the case with you, but one thing I've learned from people that are gung-ho about organic and natural foods is that they only will read the research of people they agree with. If you really want to know the truth, try to research both sides with an open mind and then draw your own conclusions. It's too bad money influences studies but I think University studies are less likely to be influenced than independent studies. If you think it is only Monsanto and companies like them paying money for desired results you are fooling yourself. There is a lot of money to be made in organic and natural foods. You think these Dr.'s giving these speeches and writing papers are only doing it to help people? They make their living pushing their ideas, you think they are going to give fair and balanced reports?

Excellent points. It permeates every aspect of society. It is a trait we all share - we seek confirmation of what we already believe.

PS: I embrace the SKEPTIC.
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
Bright Raven":2ldsh7ct said:
ChrisB":2ldsh7ct said:
Kudos to you Highpoint for all the research you have done. Not saying this is the case with you, but one thing I've learned from people that are gung-ho about organic and natural foods is that they only will read the research of people they agree with. If you really want to know the truth, try to research both sides with an open mind and then draw your own conclusions. It's too bad money influences studies but I think University studies are less likely to be influenced than independent studies. If you think it is only Monsanto and companies like them paying money for desired results you are fooling yourself. There is a lot of money to be made in organic and natural foods. You think these Dr.'s giving these speeches and writing papers are only doing it to help people? They make their living pushing their ideas, you think they are going to give fair and balanced reports?

Excellent points. It permeates every aspect of society. It is a trait we all share - we seek confirmation of what we already believe.

PS: I embrace the SKEPTIC.
That might be ok for people who are not faced with life or death of family. The ones in organic and natural have lost their reputation and many their income which is always the case when it involves such large amounts of money. I am glad you and your family are well but if they become sick my first advice will be to get off GMO until your well again. There really is plant based medicin that works.
 
OP
greybeard

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
21,745
Reaction score
3,097
Location
Cleveland Tx
ChrisB":iq3in7xc said:
It's too bad money influences studies but I think University studies are less likely to be influenced than independent studies. If you think it is only Monsanto and companies like them paying money for desired results you are fooling yourself. There is a lot of money to be made in organic and natural foods. You think these Dr.'s giving these speeches and writing papers are only doing it to help people? They make their living pushing their ideas, you think they are going to give fair and balanced reports?

Keep in mind tho, if you remove the research grants, and private monies from universities, you have just taken a huge chunk of financial resources from that university's ability to function. They too are very very susceptible to being influenced in what and how they do their research, the findings they include in their final analysis, what they include and what they 'conveniently' exclude, and which data they include and which data they toss out as 'superfluous' outliers' or the infamous anecdotal evidence simply to arrive at a conclusion that pleases whoever is paying for the university research. Universites don't give a crap where the money comes from and are loathe to to present any findings that very much pizzoff or disappoint those who support them financially.
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
greybeard":1mp2oz0q said:
ChrisB":1mp2oz0q said:
It's too bad money influences studies but I think University studies are less likely to be influenced than independent studies. If you think it is only Monsanto and companies like them paying money for desired results you are fooling yourself. There is a lot of money to be made in organic and natural foods. You think these Dr.'s giving these speeches and writing papers are only doing it to help people? They make their living pushing their ideas, you think they are going to give fair and balanced reports?

Keep in mind tho, if you remove the research grants, and private monies from universities, you have just taken a huge chunk of financial resources from that university's ability to function. They too are very very susceptible to being influenced in what and how they do their research, the findings they include in their final analysis, what they include and what they 'conveniently' exclude, and which data they include and which data they toss out as 'superfluous' outliers' or the infamous anecdotal evidence simply to arrive at a conclusion that pleases whoever is paying for the university research. Universites don't give a crap where the money comes from and are loathe to to present any findings that very much pizzoff or disappoint those who support them financially.

This is true and you can use their research to prove your point. I'll give you the best example that will help again.

DOCTORS were taught sugars have no benefit so unless they have taken a course in glycobiology they will not only disagree they will try to use their text books to prove their point UNTIL Wake Forest Baptist came out with growing body parts. Now they all race to learn.

If you go back to what was shared about Monsanto, and if someone could look at the first doctor to develop, he probably was one that understood the concept of sugars as he used it to bind with substance to destroy that which he knew made the plant absorb nutrients. This is elementary.

So next step is how does someone put back into the food what has been removed and we can't forget microbes as even the farming community agrees that we do not feed cattle, we feed the microbes. Certainly we would need to first agree that within healthy soil is the items that cause good health. I'm fairly certain we would agree here but when the soil is rendered dead and only items which allow the plant to grow is all that is added, what do you get. For this reason I believe grass raised beef is one of the healthiest foods as how else do people get all those items.

Although dr Hubert never mentioned these sugars, he did see what happens in the stomachs of dairy cattle. A dairyman was losing 15 percent of his cows and Dr Huber showed in his papers the lesions caused by glyphosate. Those lesions also happen in people and in children it develops into failure to thrive.

Other doctors have studies using aloe but unless stabilized wouldn't be able to work. Also why feed an animal something that causes them just to turn around and need a product to help heal.
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
And I did not get into one of the best benefits of glycans. Detoxification! When those cells communicate and if the man or animals have enough plant based nutrients, any toxin in the body can be illuminated. There are tests even on anthrax. The goal would be catch the problem ahead of time.

I will stand back on anaplasma here due to not understanding yet the parasite that has no cell wall but can enter other cells to rob of nutrients. The only research was with silver and FDA does not allow it in cattle. They too are years behind on detoxification.

One more question. Can you name me one doctor in agriculture who is into the study of glycobiology because if you can I would love to read his papers. Right now I find none and the labs that test products for them say they only study human health.
 

Highpoint

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
1
sim.-ang.king":27zlg2v6 said:
It's called Glyphosate because it's made from Gly, organic compound C3,H8,N,O5, Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and phosphate (P).
It has a simple sugar (glycol) so you can bind the hydrocarbon (Ethylene) to the solvent, monomethyl ether, which then is combined with phosphorus.
The name has nothing to do with it's mode of action, and saying that the word "sate" stands for saturation is just a conjuring of your own imagination, and pure ignorance.
I learn so much in these discussions. Now I am not sure you know what you are talking about but it does tie into something else I know. Cells absorb sugars. In fact they know that if you want cancer tumors to take in a substance just feed it sugar. Yes it many times will explode the tumors but without addressing the root cause it will float into other parts of the body thus cancer everywhere. Same goes for natural substances like turmeric or frankincense. Mix them with sugar and research shows it too will explode tumors.

So let's revisit your thoughts here. You say the creators of glyphosate did not create a product that destroys cell surface sugars and you are correct if what you explained above is correct. You are saying they use sugar to saturate the cells by binding to the poison which is taken into the cells. However in my comment I did say sugar saturation but should have said sugar saturation with poison because they know cells absorb sugar.

Also I know there are many environmental problems which cause disease but since we are just focused on GMO foods let's visit about why I do not think they are sustainable. The makers had to splice bacteria into the DNA of the seed in order to spray the plant with glyphosate killing all other plants but leaving the plant with altered DNA. Hope I said this right. It stands to reason they would somehow need to register their product as a potent antibiotic since the seed itself has the bacteria in the DNA. Also their seed creation appears to have the ability to take over other seeds as well organic farmers cannot farm next to fields with those traits or they will loose their seeds. Not sure maybe it is the bacteria itself that overcomes the good seed but I know if enough of those sugars are developed in soils they would detox the bacteria from the GMO seeds.

you certainly have given me some items to research and hope you are saving good seeds.
 

J Hoy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
66
Reaction score
34
You are right about a few things here. Health issues in the USA is about to break the bank and people of all ages now have the Internet to study and some are very mad while others are just trying to make a living. The dots are not all connected yet but by the time they are it will be the large corporate groups that will loose the most unless they have found good seeds and learned how to work with natures immune system instead of trying to destroy the land and add back just what is needed to produce a crop. You mine as well not follow them down that hole. Goodness if you farm at all you can see fungus issues super weeds and instead of reducing the amounts of chemicals you are now required to increase. I can see too why no one wants to admit it has caused some serious health costs as well.

When I first started studying deep study fifteen years ago I started with the high school teaching on the immune system. The Bible says we are just dirt so what helps the dirt helps us. I went into raw milk than how in the world pharma took over universities in 1910. I found out how the Supreme Court allowed corporations to own living things like the seeds and their race to modified the seeds so farmers could not save their own. By the way it started with GE patenting a worm that was suppose to be able to eat oil. Those same companies would love to shut up Dr Huber and others as if they can keep the farmer in the dark. Please don't misunderstand, I came to this site to learn as much about cattle as possible not to change your way of doing things. I have already learned a great deal and with me I like to ask the question why. I cannot always find your language terms but will get there.

Who knows maybe one day the cattle online will add a section on organic or natural. It appears from comments that there are some involved in it.
I was never sure why glyphosate was blamed for causing cancer. It is a patented mineral chelator and a patented antibiotic and it was used for these things prior to being used as a herbicide. As a mineral chelator, it can disrupt fetal development, especially bone and tendon development. As an antibiotic that has been widely applied throughout the world, it is likely contributing to antibiotic resistant "super bugs" that cause bacterial infections. If an animal ingests glyphosate with its food, the good gut bacteria that are instrumental in digesting the food (especially in grazing animals) and that are the main component of an animal's immune system are killed. That causes weight loss and susceptibility to diseases, neither of which are good for livestock herds or wildlife.

For some reason, those serious effects of exposure are almost never mentioned concerning glyphosate. It is likely that no one has figured out a way to make tons of money by addressing these issues, while the lawyers are making a killing constantly talking about cancer. Thus, it is not at all a surprise that the study found that glyphosate was not shown to cause cancer.
 

J Hoy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
66
Reaction score
34
You are right about a few things here. Health issues in the USA is about to break the bank and people of all ages now have the Internet to study and some are very mad while others are just trying to make a living. The dots are not all connected yet but by the time they are it will be the large corporate groups that will loose the most unless they have found good seeds and learned how to work with natures immune system instead of trying to destroy the land and add back just what is needed to produce a crop. You mine as well not follow them down that hole. Goodness if you farm at all you can see fungus issues super weeds and instead of reducing the amounts of chemicals you are now required to increase. I can see too why no one wants to admit it has caused some serious health costs as well.

When I first started studying deep study fifteen years ago I started with the high school teaching on the immune system. The Bible says we are just dirt so what helps the dirt helps us. I went into raw milk than how in the world pharma took over universities in 1910. I found out how the Supreme Court allowed corporations to own living things like the seeds and their race to modified the seeds so farmers could not save their own. By the way it started with GE patenting a worm that was suppose to be able to eat oil. Those same companies would love to shut up Dr Huber and others as if they can keep the farmer in the dark. Please don't misunderstand, I came to this site to learn as much about cattle as possible not to change your way of doing things. I have already learned a great deal and with me I like to ask the question why. I cannot always find your language terms but will get there.

Who knows maybe one day the cattle online will add a section on organic or natural. It appears from comments that there are some involved in it.
 

J Hoy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
66
Reaction score
34
When GMO crops began being sprayed with glyphosate, the underdeveloped facial bones (resulting in either underbite or overbite depending on which facial bones were underdeveloped) on grazing animals, including equines and camelids began to be very high in prevalence. That is why I suggested on another thread that livestock owners should check the bite on their calves, sheep, goats, foals and newborn camelids. I was asked, "Who checks the bites?"

It was also suggested by someone that livestock are not born with underbite or overbite. And yet, hundreds of photos are posted on the Internet of all of the above listed species and of wild grazing animals with underbite, if you ask for images of underbite and of overbite, if you ask for images of overbite. How did people get so many photos of so many animals with those birth defects if livestock and wild grazing animals are not born with them? Even a 5 year old child can see an underbite or an overbite, so why can't adult livestock owners see those birth defects? Prior to the late 1990s, almost no underbite was reported on wild grazing animals in the scientific literature. Now underbite is epidemic in grazing animals. The timing and the fact that glyphosate is a patented mineral chelator should make it the number one suspect for this birth defect. Underbite results in significant less weight gain in calves, so I would think that beef ranchers would be the first to consider this factor prior to using GMO feed or feed sprayed with Glyphosate Based Herbicides. Just saying.
 

Latest posts

Top