Page 5 of 6

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:16 am
by sim.-ang.king
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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:49 am
by Highpoint
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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:12 am
by True Grit Farms
Finding a cure for cancer won't pay the bills either.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:26 pm
by sim.-ang.king
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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:20 pm
by True Grit Farms
Facts mean nothing to liberals.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:57 pm
by bball
sim.-ang.king wrote: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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:17 pm
by Highpoint
sim.-ang.king wrote: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

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm
by True Grit Farms
Image

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:10 pm
by sim.-ang.king
Highpoint wrote:
sim.-ang.king wrote: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

Image


Image

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:37 pm
by Highpoint
True Grit Farms wrote: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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:06 pm
by ChrisB
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?

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 pm
by Bright Raven
ChrisB wrote: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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:55 pm
by Highpoint
Bright Raven wrote:
ChrisB wrote: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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:39 am
by greybeard
ChrisB wrote: 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.

Re: glyphosate study

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:37 pm
by Highpoint
greybeard wrote:
ChrisB wrote: 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.