We're joining forces to defeat government corruption, restore
free speech, and make America healthy again. We're
gonna make America healthy again, you know?
We're a nation that
is not doing well in a lot of
ways and we're not doing so well with
health, but we're gonna solve a lot of
those problems I think over the next short
period of time. A lot of it's common.
A lot of that's common sense too. It's
all common sense when you get right down
to it. But we're gonna get toxic
chemicals out of our environment and we're gonna
get them out of our food supply. We're
gonna get them out of our bodies.
We'll get them out of our body. Right?
Right?
Welcome to The Last American Vagabond. Joining me
today once again is Stephanie Sneff, PhD, to
discuss
glyphosate
and the very frustrating and confusing for some
executive order from Donald Trump. There he was
talking about getting that dangerous stuff out of
our food. And we've seen a lot of
these moments where
maybe it wasn't good intention. It's hard to
say where things were stated, directions were set
that that are not being kept. And glyphosate
being the earliest example or the latest example
of a lot of those,
like turning back on the food dye discussion.
So, Stephanie Sineff here to discuss it, probably
the best person out there to discuss glyphosate
to set the table for where we are
today. So, Stephanie, how are you? Thank you
for joining me again today. I'm great. Thanks
for having me.
As I said, you know, right when I
saw that, you were the first person I
thought of. I said, we have to get
around to talk about the alarming reality of
this. So, you know, that was Trump back
in, I believe, 2024,
bleeding into and, you know, and he's had
a lot of those same statements up until,
I mean, very recently, really, and RFK Jr
as well. And so, as we said, he
recently rolled out this executive order. So, we
can start with this and, you know, just
give me your thoughts on this, what, you
know, for for somebody who's done the work
you have. And, you know, I I imagine
my audience is very familiar with your work
from our interview, from past, you know, just
knowing your work in general, but feel free
to to, introduce yourself and let us know
what your work has been on glyphosate. But
then, you know, let me know what you
thought about this when you saw it, and
we'll start with that.
Okay. Yeah. It's been a really interesting story
with glyphosate over the past a year.
All the effort of Bayer,
at the national level and at the state
level, multiple states, they're trying to get laws
passed that would give glyphosate
a get out of jail free card like
the vaccines have. I mean, that is just,
like, really scary to say. You've gotten on
Hopkins lymphoma. Glyphosate is the only chemical you
were exposed to. But too bad for you,
you can't do it. I mean, that would
be really devastating, and and that's where the
Beyer has put tremendous pressure
on the legislators at all the levels and
even above the country level. You know, they're
really working hard to to keep glyphosate on
the market. And they recognize that if
they don't get this protection,
they're going to go bankrupt on the lawsuits
because there's just so many now. And
the big one, you know, Dwayne Lee Johnson
was just such a breakthrough. I remember it
so vividly when that happened. I was so
astonished that it actually worked, that he got
that,
that the jury trial ended up with a
big sum of money for his non Hodgkin's
lymphoma. And that opened the door and then
it's just been a floodgate.
And so
I was really glad to see that too.
Just that it showed change momentum, you know,
that It really was a really important point
in history,
and it's the beginning of the end for
glyphosate. I have no doubt that it will
eventually be banned worldwide. I have no doubt
because I see how toxic it is. And
it's not just cancer. And as as you
know, I've talked about so many other diseases,
that glyphosate is causal in. And I think
it's the primary cause
of the epidemic that we're seeing in, basically,
metabolic dysfunction,
which then connects to all these diseases that
are going up. You know, we have such
a terrible record in health care. We spend
so much money, and people are so sick
in this country, so obese, you know, diabetes,
fatty liver disease, all these problems. And of
course, autism is a big one for me.
I believe if we got rid of glyphosate
and didn't replace it, by the way, with
other toxic herbicides that's the key thing. We
can't just substitute something else.
You know? We need to figure out how
to grow food naturally
without using toxic chemicals. It makes no sense
to me that you would pour toxic chemicals
all over the food supply. You know? It
just makes no sense whatsoever. And so I
don't understand how we've
managed to keep this going all this time.
You know? I just think we need a
revolution in food in in growing food. Couldn't
agree more. Couldn't agree more. And, you know,
I it that's it. We should we're let's
touch on we're gonna get to the health
part of this, and and that's a good
point you made there that it can't just
be, you know, it can't just be swapped
out with something. Even if it's lesser than,
it is still in the same beta problem.
And that that's a frustrating part. So we
maybe we can get into what you think
they may replace it with when that comes.
But before we get past that, going back
to the executive order, Yes. So you made
a interesting point about lawsuits, and I agree.
And I think this has been seen by
most people that pay attention to this because
Monsanto and now Bayer Monsanto have been fighting
this for a long time that the lawsuits
will bury them because there are hundreds of
thousands of them. But let me give me
your opinion on if you think there's an
element of Trump's executive order, not just for
just to make it clear for those who
didn't read it, we're talking about not only,
trying to pivot to have, like, more production
in The United States, also making it a
national defense imperative.
You know, not not rolling it back in
any discernible way, but leaning into it, support.
And then also talking about,
the Bondi and the DOJ with and giving
them immunity to prosecution.
Do you think that the government side of
this is also worried that they may face
lawsuits because of their involvement with all this?
Well, that could be, but I can see
his point about China. And, actually, he's been
pretty consistent about looking at,
things that we depend on China for. You
know, the the, air metals, for example. Right.
Serious problem. And so he's looking at,
what do we depend on China for,
and how can we get rid of that
dependence? And I think he really focuses on
that. And I think it's an important point.
You know, why and especially with toxic chemicals
being put on our food, You could imagine
I mean, glyphosate is toxic all by itself.
No question. But they could slip a little
arsenic in there. I mean, they could do
whatever. Right? And they would it's like the
opioid problem in China in reverse. You know?
China can poison us this way if they
choose to. Not saying that they do.
But, and, of course, they could also simply
withdraw it, which would be wonderful for me
if they stop selling it to us.
That would force us. That would be a
forcing function that would be wonderful as far
as I'm concerned.
But I think his logic may be that,
he's looking at all the things that we
critically depend on China for, and he wants
us to lose that dependence. And that's the
that's, I think, the way he's thinking of
it. So we need to make our own
glyphosate. And, of course, we're gonna have problems
with the people who live near the place
where they're making the glyphosate, glyphosate, I suspect,
because that's gonna cause toxicity locally for them.
And the phosphorus too is another thing that
I think we we have a problem with
making sure we have enough phosphorus.
And the phosphorus is important also for the
phosphate,
fertilizers that they put on the crops.
You know? In regard to that point, which
is important. Right? Because this is in my
opinion, come coming from a nonpartisan kinda look
at this, both sides of the paradigm will
often use things that we want in order
to trick us into or manipulate us into
or, you know, however you look at it
into something that they ultimately want. And so
in this case, there's a valid point you
made about the over dependence on this, the
interesting point about the foreign policy overlap, and
that and the point you made well there.
But would you argue with that being accepted
as the reality that this was the right
direction to lean further into it? Just Obviously,
I wouldn't think that way. I mean, my
thought would be, okay. We don't want this
glyphosate from China. Let's figure out how we
can grow food without glyphosate. Right? That would
be the logical thing to do, in my
opinion. Now I suspect that the farmers are
are saying
they can't grow food without glyphosate. They've become
so dependent on it that they think they
can't grow food without glyphosate, which is really
crazy because
you did that for so many millions of
years. You know? Right. Right. Right. So you
said they think. Right? So do you think
do you in your opinion, do you think
it's more
that they're manipulated in the mindset of that?
And we can touch on the yield part
of it right now if you wanna get
into that, and I do wanna touch on
it at some point today, the the lie
I think about the yield part. Or do
you think it's that they're being threatened? Not
necessarily violence, but, you know, coercive measures that
they have to. Otherwise, they'll lose certain allowances
or permits or whatever if they don't use
it. And so that's sort of, like, why
they demand but or not so much demanding
it, but saying, well, we're forced in this.
We need it because of that. Do you
think that they would otherwise go a different
direction in your opinion?
Well, I'm actually aware of, in Brazil, there
was
a a a movie about a small town
where they grew tobacco.
And, and they had then what's the tobacco
company that they were selling to? They required
that they use glyphosate on the tobacco. Right.
They could not not use it, and they
had a lot of kids that were very
sick. And that was a really interesting film
that I watched. And there may be some
of that going on here.
That whole GMO system kinda you get locked
in once you get started with it. Right.
And the glyphosate is wreck is wrecking the
soil
and the soil bacteria and that it's decreasing.
Initially, when they first
came up with the GMO crops, they got
really good improvement in yield the first couple
of years. So they were very excited. They
bought into it. And once they're in that
machinery of buying the GMO Roundup Ready crops
and then buying the glyphosate to to put
on them, they kind of get stuck in
a in a situation where they don't know
how to get out of it. You know?
And of course, their their their soil is
now contaminated with glyphosate. Another study from Brazil
looked at the levels of glyphosate in the
soil year by year in a in a
crop where they were using glyphosate to control
the weeds, and they found that every year
there was more glyphosate. So it wasn't going
away. It was really just accumulating in the
soil.
And, of course, the glyphosate then kills the
soil bacteria,
and you get a dysbiosis in the soil
just as you do in the gut. And
then it also chelates the minerals, so, you
know, you don't have enough,
mineral supply. It it disrupts the ability of
the minerals to get into the plants, which
means the plants become mineral deficient, and you
become mineral deficient when you eat those plants.
There's a lot of things wrong
that go wrong with that whole system.
And eventually and also the the plant is
much more susceptible to drought. You know, Don
Huber has shown pictures of organic farm next
to nonorganic farm, and the organic farm is
all green and the nonorganic is all, you
know,
what color would it be?
Dried out.
So
very obvious that the, the glyphosate is a
desiccant. They use it as a desiccant. That's
one way in which it gets
into the food supply. With non GMO crops
like wheat, I mean, there's there's actually more
glyphosate
on many of the non GMO crops than
there are on the GMO crops. So it's
not good enough to buy non GMO if
you're trying to get rid of glyphosate.
Right. Right. And and, you know, you you
touch on the Roundup Ready. For those that
might not be familiar, this is actually interesting
to me. Because of how popular that topic
was or just, you know, discussed, it was
very, very mainstream. It was very, you know,
the the the debate and everything about it.
It's interesting to me how little it seems
people remember
that glyphosate became a conversation point again, and
people seem to forget what that meant. So
if you could just briefly give people the
understanding of what it means, the Roundup Ready
dynamic, and why, you know, what needs to
be done to the plant and, you know,
not necessarily getting into all the science, but
just so they understand what that means and
why they're sort of reliant on it.
Well, what happened was they discovered this, microbe
that was able to resist glyphosate was was,
not susceptible to glyphosate toxicity. There's this one
enzyme called EPSP synthase
that glyphosate famously disrupts, and it's critical enzyme
in plants. It's also a critical enzyme in
many of the bacteria in our gut, which
is an important point because that's how we
get started with glyphosate toxicity.
And so,
where was I going with that?
The the Roundup Ready dynamic and how it
Yeah. So they came up with this idea
of putting that gene into the into the
crops, and they did that very successfully for
the core crops. The corn, the soy, the
canola,
the sugar beets, and the alfalfa, those are
the core crops that have this GMO gene
embedded in the in their DNA.
That's that's the genetic,
modification that is the GMO concept. Mhmm. And
so, and then these crops are expensive. The
seeds are expensive to buy, and but they
allow you to pour glyphosate all over the
crop. It doesn't die. So it makes it
extremely easy to control your weeds. Right. And
so you don't have to hire people to
pull weeds, basically, and that saves you a
lot of money. So it makes your your
plant it makes your food cheaper,
because of that. But it also causes all
these other problems,
And the and the soil ends up eroding
more quickly, and also nitrate fertilizers end up
spilling off more easily because they're not being
taken up as readily
because glyphosate disrupts the microbes that facilitate the
uptake of the nitrogen into the plant.
So you get nitrate washing off, and then
you get lots of problems with the waterways
because of excess nitrogen. You get that, overgrowth
of cyanobacteria.
You get sort of toxic, you know, red
tide. All that kind of stuff comes out
of,
glyphosate
messing up the soil bacteria.
Sound
sounds borderline deliberate to me, but, I mean,
it's kind of hard to mistakenly make all
those things happen, it seems. Maybe you you
would know more than me. But the the,
desiccate part is something that RK Junior spoke
about, and this is a clip. I forget
what year it was, but, you know and
he's spoken about this his entire thing. On
this topic for quite some time. Right. Right.
And he just making it very clear that
this is the, you know, the not just
the what you described, the use of it,
which does have its own clear effects. So
both the GMO crop and and the studies
around that, but also what the Roundup is
doing rather than glyphosate,
but then spraying it and drenching it in
order to dry it out that then very
much more carries over. You know, it's it's
it's it's very clear that there's a health
overlap to this, which we can get into,
but since we touched on the yield. Let
let's talk about that because I think that's
one of the huge one of the most
like, the argument becomes it's it's a necessity
because of our agriculture, because of our even
foreign policy. But for the agriculture part, it's
about the increase of yield that will our
food supply will will collapse.
I personally even in in the earliest parts
of the science, I didn't see how that
even made sense. And, you know, just I'm
not an expert, but there's been numerous scientific
studies, peer reviewed and otherwise, that have come
out and shown that that's, you know, in
multiple ways, not actually the reality. So what's
your opinion on that? Because there are industry
studies that claim the opposite. So in your
opinion, does it increase the yield of the
crops? Well, I think it did the first
couple of years. They first rolled out the
GMO crops, but then year by year, the
yield got lower and lower. And now I
think that the organics can out compete. In
terms of yield, they can out compete Right.
The non organic, approach that that the industrialized
agricultural approach.
And and, really, they also force us to
you know, we ended up having all these
huge farms with with pure corn. I mean,
nothing but corn, the whole farm. Monocropping. You
know? Monocropping is not a good idea. I
think it's I really like the idea of
small family farm, and I'd love to see
those come back. They all got killed.
The small family farms couldn't compete against those
huge
agricultural, you know, industrialized agriculture,
lots and lots of acres growing lots and
lots of corn. It just
is not really the right way to do
food. You know? We we we need to
have a lot more variety of crops being
grown. We need to be eating a lot
more fresh vegetables and fruits, you know, that
that come off these small family farms.
And so we've got this whole processed food
industry that's based on the corn and soy
and canola. You've got the oil. The soy
is the protein. The corn's got the sugar.
You've got the whole basis of the processed
food industry there.
And so people eating all these foods that
have been, you know and also synthetic,
flavor enhancers and all this kind of stuff
so that people, get hooked on these foods
that are not, at all healthy.
When you say hooked, do you mean them
in not just that they get they like,
but, like, there's an addictive overlap to that
in your mind? It looks that way. You
know, people get to where they just,
the the taste is so because when you
have the synthetic,
flavors, that's also an issue because it's just
it's fooling your taste buds. It's it's not
anything that's not natural is not good in
my opinion. I I always look for natural.
Even when you buy,
supplements, you don't wanna buy synthetic versions of
those supplements. You wanna buy natural ones that
come from some kind of nature source. You
know? Mhmm. Yeah. No. I agree. And, you
know, and and one thing that we touched
on on this in in our our,
previous interview when when and Danny Mancua joined
us as well is is the synergistic
level of this. And so let's get it
we can get into the health aspects, like
the the the reason that glyphosate actually hurts
you in in its in a, you know,
in its
alone sense, but then also just how, you
know, how it functions through all the rest
of it's being used. But this what I
found interesting in this conversation was the that
your argument about how the mRNA vaccination and
the glyphosate, whether designed or not, were essentially
working in a synergistic way to hurt your
body. And so that interestingly came to mind
with where we're at today in a lot
of different factors. And I'll I'll point to
a recent post that you shared, like, its
onslaught
on and you could pronounce these properly for
me, both the the the,
shiitake pathway and the rest of it are
not shiitake. I said I said it wrong
again. But That's a Japanese form. That's probably
the correct pronunciation. You can walk us through
it. And and let me know, you know,
the why this is important. Because this for
me and I if you guys haven't heard
this stuff, I find this to be the
most important part, the how it affects the
stomach and the microbiome and and the point
about the wheat and the connection to everything.
So go into this for us and how,
essentially, it's synergistic and how it's hurting us.
Oh, man. That's, like, such a huge topic,
and I've it's really caught my attention for
so many years. I'm still very deep into
the research, and I'm still discovering new things
every day. I just am so intrigued
by this chemical because it actually has a
very unique mechanism of toxicity
unique to glyphosate.
It's the only chemical in the world. If
I'm right and I have to say this
is a theory that I have, which is
being pushed back, of course, by the industry.
They're denying that it's possible, in fact. But
I think glyphosate is substituting for glycine, the
amino acid glycine, during protein synthesis.
That is a unique aspect of glyphosate that
I don't know of any other chemical that
has that property.
And that is what makes it so toxic.
And it's also insidiously toxic because it doesn't
boil you up. You don't get sick to
your stomach when you're exposed to it. It's
a subtle slow kill. So what does that
mean exactly that replaces that? What does that
for someone who doesn't understand the terms, what
does that mean? Yeah. So proteins are are
the workhorses of the body, and they're they're
made from the DNA code, the famous DNA
code in the gen in the genome. And
you have a sequence of amino of, of,
nucleotides
that code for each it's three a three
letter code. So four different nucleotides, three letter
code. It's really elegant. And this is that
whole DNA,
Watson and Crick thing that is just incredible.
It's really fascinating that the body works that
way. But you just read off the machinery
reads off the code and makes the protein
from the code. And there's a code for
glycine.
And and and there's about 20 amino acids.
So it's it's there's 64 possible combinations of
those three letters,
four four letters taken three ways.
And, there's 20 amino acids, so there's some
redundancy. You know, sometimes multiple codes code for
the same one. And in fact, glycine's code
is g g x, where x is a
wild card. So it can be all of
the other all of four can go with
this. So it has four different codes for
guys for glycine, but the first two are
guanine.
In the is getting too technical. I'm sorry.
It's hard not to be technical when you're
talking about this stuff. But but people who've
taken any biology know about this. And so
the three letter code makes glycine whenever you
see this g g x. But if it
but when it's looking for glycine, it can
it can accidentally pick up glyphosate instead because
glyphosate is a glycine molecule. It's a complete
glycine molecule. It has no side chains just
like glycine has no side chains. That's unique
property of glycine.
It has a side chain on its nitrogen
atom, but that is outside of the spot
that has to fix fit the molecule.
The nitrogen has to stick out because it
has to hook up with the other guys
in the chain. And the nitrogen has this
extra bulky thing sticking on on it, which
is a methylphosphonate.
That's what makes glycine glyphosate so unique. Mhmm.
The methylphosphonate looks a lot like phosphate.
And so my theory is that it whenever
you have a glycine residue at a place
where the, protein binds phosphate,
glyphosate can stick its methylphosphonate
in the spot that's supposed to be there
for the substrate so the substrate can fit.
But glyphosate occupies that space, and then the
the protein can't bind phosphate.
And when the protein can't bind phosphate, it
can't work because these bind body or the
person that's happening to. Say it again. So
so what does that mean for the person
that's happening to? So the protein gets broken.
It gets severely broken just by that one
change to have glycine
replaced by glyphosate at that place, which is
where it binds the phosphate at the active
site. That's exactly what happens with g p
EPSP synthase.
That's the protein that they've identified. The glyphosate
severely disrupts
Mhmm. In the plants. That's what kills
basically all plants. All plants have a dependency
on that enzyme that binds phosphate at a
place where glycine is highly conserved. Exactly that
pattern.
If you in fact, the GMO crops, they
don't have glycine code at that at that
spot.
That particular amino acid, that that particular protein
that they found in the microbe
has an alanine instead of glycine. The code
is different.
So glyphosate can't substitute. And it turns out
that if you replace the glycine
so they doubt chemical did an experiment where
they
they can modify you know, they have clever
techniques. They can actually replace the glycine with
alanine
in the in the plant's version of the
of the enzyme.
And when they do that, the plant is
completely insensitive to glyphosate. In other words, it
completely kills
glyphosate's ability to affect that enzyme if you
get rid of that glycine.
And the logical conclusion is the glyphosate is
substituting for that glycine. There's really no other
conclusion. And as if they were substituting for
the substrate, which is what they argue,
it wouldn't be so so,
black and white. So if I understand correctly
so you're the the the genetically modifying mechanism
they're they're using to create the situation where
the plant, can resist this, you're saying that
that in a in a different way is
is happening or some different way affecting us?
The same mechanism or the same Well, yeah.
I mean, it's happening to that particular enzyme,
and that's a very big problem for the
plant. Mhmm. But it's also happening to lots
of other enzymes. And I've gone through, you
know, many papers looking for
enzymes that have glycine that's at the site
where they bind phosphate. That's my sort of
I talk about that in my book. Here's
my book, Toxic Legacy.
And I have a whole chapter in that
book where I argue this idea that glyphosate
substitutes for glycine. I I'm almost certain that
that's what's happening.
Mhmm. And and they are denying it vehemently.
So there's a real battle going on between
me and the rest of the world, basically.
I'm quite confident that that's what's happening because
it explains everything. It explains all these diseases
that are going up dramatically.
In my book, I show how you can
find a disease,
autism, for example, going up dramatically.
You can find enzymes
that are where genetic mutations in those enzymes,
even glycine mutations in those enzymes are linked
to that disease.
You know? And and then those glycine mutations
are at places where binds phosphate. I mean,
the whole system is so beautiful. It's it's
beautiful science.
Fascinating. And that's how I can explain all
these diseases that are going up dramatically exactly
in step with glyphosate, including, you know, diabetes,
obesity, autism, Alzheimer's,
various cancers,
pancreatic cancer. Right. Right. There's a huge list.
That's what I was getting to and I
was gonna say I recommend your book, but
I I I that's what I was getting
to is the so what you were describing
there leads to what you just listed off.
It's just this litany
of or potentially, anyway, based on your theory,
all of these different, you know, cancers and,
you know, and just a long list of
problems. And so that's I just wanna bring
that together for people to hear what you
were describing in the scientific sense, but know
that we're talking about all the things that
we're dealing with. And so it's a it's
a really interesting kind of point there. But,
I had there's one thing I was just
gonna jump to that I thought was, very
relevant there. I wanted to get into the
the,
the part about the oh, that's what it
was. Before I get to that, I wanna
get into the the actual additional parts to
the the how it harms the body. But
you brought up something interesting that I think
makes or a point I'm gonna add to
what you said that makes this very specific.
And you you mentioned in that in in
your other, post that you had shared about
the 2,006 forward use of glyphosate on wheat.
And I looked up the the relevance, you
know, the the incidence of celiac disease. And
I found it very interesting that you can
see this pretty, very, you know, linear graph
basically breaking down how clearly this has increased.
Now you that's correlation, not always causation. I
know. That's there's a lot of correlations that
they claim that can't possibly be causation. I
think they're all causation, actually. Yeah. All of
them. You know? Well, at least plays a
factor. Then that back to your point of
the synergistic problem. The only thing that causes,
But you can say it's the cause of
the epidemic. That's the way I see it.
Well, what what what other things would you
say would be synergistically working alongside glyphosate to
potentially add to this? Well, certainly aluminum, for
example, and toxic metals in general, for sure.
And, of course, we have all these other
herbicides and insecticides
and fungicides that are on our food. They're
all toxic. They're all toxic.
And so, you know, and fluoride in the
water, I mean, it's such a huge list.
Even folic acid. It works synergistically with folic
acid. Folic acid is a problem.
There we're beginning to the government, I think,
is beginning to appreciate that. You know, we've
got folic acid,
fortification in our wheat.
And I think that's part of the problem
with the gluten intolerance along with the glyphosate.
Actually, I've written about that in a in
a web in a page article, not not
a peer reviewed article, but just an article
that I wrote on the web,
linking folic acid
and glyphosate together
to celiac disease and other, basically, disruption of
the methylation pathways because folic acid is folate
is critical for the methylation pathways. And what's
found in the foods
is a form of folate that's very different
from the one they put into the the
one they put into the breed is synthetic.
And you always have to be wary of
synthetic because they don't understand the science well
enough to realize
that it doesn't work the same way. The
folic acid
the folate that's in the food, the gut
microbes know how to turn that into methyl
tetrahydrofolate,
which has a methyl group that's an extremely
important part of methylation pathways. It's the source
of the methyl groups in the methylation pathways.
Methylation pathway disruption is a feature of autism,
and glyphosate is really, really tough on the
methylation pathways.
And I talked about that in my book
too, but glyphosate messes up critical.
I believe it messes up critical proteins that
have that glyphosate susceptibility motif
that are critically involved in making that methyl
group that comes out of the gut micros.
Gut microbes
deliver
the methyl group to the methylation pathways.
And I should probably mention deuterium at this
point because I've really become obsessed with deuterium
lately.
And and I realized that the the microbes
make deuterium depleted nutrients for the host. Deuterium
is heavy hydrogen.
Okay. And it has an extra sorry. It
has an extra,
neutron as well as a proton. Hydrogen is
just one proton, one electron,
tiniest, atom in the world, most common by
far in in in the universe.
And deuterium is a natural heavy isotope of
hydrogen. It has an extra neutron.
So it goes everywhere hydrogen goes. Hydrogen goes
everywhere, so it's it's involved in every reaction
that happens.
And deuterium is is in nature, so we've
got lots of deuterium atoms in our body.
But deuterium is kind of like a toxic
metal
because it's, the, mitochondria are very sensitive to
deuterium. They hate it. And the body has
developed this incredibly sophisticated metabolic process
that tries to deliver as little deuterium as
possible to the mitochondria.
And part of that, a critical part of
that, is the methylation pathways because those methyl
groups
and this is gonna be some science, but
I would really like to say this because
the
the microbes make hydrogen gas.
You know, you get gas, you get bloating.
For example, you get bloating with glyphosate, and
that's because the gases are not easily being
brought back into
organic matter. There's a whole cycle
in the gut with the microbes where they
take your food,
they convert it to carbon dioxide and hydrogen
gas, and then the hydrogen gas is used
as a reducing agent to make new food.
And that new food, for example, is butyrate,
and butyrate is an incredibly important
short chain fatty acid. It 70% of the
food that the colonocytes
take in is butyrate. They love butyrate. It's
a very it's a small fatty acid produced
by the microbes and low in deuterium, I
believe. Because you could source it back from
that methane gas, and the methane sources from
the hydrogen gas.
And well, is hydrogen going to acetate, actually,
if you wanna be ticked think about that
to be at a rate? But the hydrogen
is very low in deuterium because you lose
80% of the deuterium when you turn it
into a gas. That is a critical, critical
point. And I've been writing about that in
many of my papers. For those that you
know, for to to make that in in
layman terms as easy as possible to understand,
what does that mean? What is that what's
the functional reality of that for somebody who
doesn't understand the science? I'm sorry about that.
People need to take more biology because a
lot of people don't need to know very
much biohut. Just just say, I find it
really important that that you include this stuff.
I think it's very important because there's plenty
out there that this will be this will
be you know, you'll be connecting dots for
people that very much do know the science.
I'm probably somewhere in the middle, but there's
plenty. Yeah. It's important to include, so please
continue. Well, I have to say deuterium is
extremely,
very few scientists in America are working on
deuterium. We're a very small group.
We're passionate about it. It's it's actually it
was much more research going on in Russia
and in Ukraine and in Hungary. Those are
kind of the three countries where the whole
deuterium thing kinda took off from way back.
And and and in Russia, they scientists identified
some time ago,
that there were these people who lived in
Siberia,
who had a pretty, you would think they
had a poor diet because they didn't have
a whole lot of fruits and vegetables because
it was up north.
They ate a lot of fat animal based
fats, and like fish, of course,
and, I don't know, bison or something like
that. But they were eating a a a
strange diet. You would think it was kind
of an odd diet, which which would be
missing some nutrients. But yet, they were extremely
healthy. They lived many of them lived to
be over 100, and they were healthy up
up into old age.
And so the scientists were interested in trying
to figure out why.
And what they figured out was that they
were drinking water that was low in deuterium
because it was coming off the glacier.
Mhmm. And the glacier water was what was
keeping them healthy.
And so people actually market deuterium depleted water,
which I believe in as a way to,
to lower your deuterium burden in your body
by drinking deuterium depleted water. But you can
eat foods that are low in deuterium, and
those are gonna be fatty foods.
So fats have the lowest levels,
proteins are in the middle, and and carbs
have the highest level of deuterium. So if
you're eating a strictly carbohydrate diet, you're getting
a high deuterium diet. And that's just gonna
make your problem harder because you're gonna have
better better chance of getting deuterium into your
mitochondria, which is gonna wreck them.
Interesting. Is there any port point at which
you feel that there's some deliberate part of
that? Or is that just an organic byproduct
or or, you know,
side, you know, is there something is there
an element of where that's being added into
our food supply or is that just
Well, it is interesting that we've had a
kind of an obsession with low fat for
many years. You know, back in the nineteen
seventies, I remember they were, you know, pushing,
low fat diet, which I never bought into.
I always liked fats, and I always ate
a lot of fats. And I believe fats
are the healthiest foods you can eat. So
you you want to have a high fat
diet, not a low fat diet. But people
would try to avoid fats, you know, and
it's ironic because you think fatty liver disease,
oh, I better stop eating fats. And and
even cholesterol, you know, high cholesterol, I better
stop eating cholesterol. It's actually the opposite.
If you eat fats, your liver doesn't need
to make fat.
Interesting. And fatty liver disease comes from alcohol
and fructose, you know? Sugar. Exactly. And they
don't have any fat in them. So it's
really interesting that,
you need to eat the things that are
in the you know, it doesn't make sense
to you that you should eat cholesterol
to lower your cholesterol. But I think that's
true. You know, your your your body loves
cholesterol. And when you eat cholesterol,
it goes into the chylomicron and gets shipped
straight to the to the heart
via the lymph system. It bypasses the blood.
And the heart loves loves cholesterol. So it
it is takes taking up that cholesterol right
away as soon as it comes to the
heart, and it's getting the cholesterol that it
needs.
But then if you don't if you eat
a low cholesterol diet, now your liver's gotta
make cholesterol, and it's gotta put it into
those LDL particles, and your LDL goes up.
But it's very confusing to people that,
it's not it it that what seems obvious
is not true.
Yeah. You know, see, call me a conspiracy
theorist, but I tend to find that that's
something that's very well you know, that other
doctor you know, that people in the industries
are aware of that, and yet we're constantly
fed things that seem to be counterintuitive to
the scientific reality. So, you know, that could
be incompetence. Yeah. I don't know if it's
true, but it just looked like they're trying
to make us sick, I have to say.
I agree. And and, of course, the industry
knows that if they can sell us all
these drugs, like, you know, lifestyle drugs that
you have to take for the rest of
your life, that's money in their pockets. And
so I don't think they want us to
know
how to be healthy. Then they give us
disinformation,
you know, if they're telling us things that
are absolutely the opposite of what you should
be doing. So it's really sad to see
that the American health care system is really
a mess. And,
I I don't trust,
pharma at all. I mean, I think they're
just out for
money. They like I I I hated to
admit this, and it took me a while
to accept it.
They like us to be sick. Mhmm.
And it makes sense because they can make
money as long as they can sell us
their drugs.
And there's numerous examples
of of people in in, you know, even
tangential industries, but from pharma basically admitting that.
You know, that their policy, their their interest
is not you know, like many industries we
deal with today, but it's just keeping the
the problem dealt with, not actually removing the
problem because you're saying that's just a never
ending stream of revenue. You know? And this
this is this doesn't even need to be
sold on people today. Most people have come
to terms with the kind of dark reality
of how this all works. Yeah. This pharmaceutical
industry is not very well respected, I have
to say. I wanna get back acromancy because
you mentioned it. And it's a very interesting
microbe. It's become a hot topic
lately in the research literature, a lot of
papers. You can show that one. Glycet's onslaught.
Oh, there you go. Nice. The Gut Club.
Yes. Right. I posted that.
And it's really, interesting because Akkermansia is a
very, important microbe in the gut
that is, suppressed by glyphosate. There's studies have
shown that. And I think there's at least
two studies that have shown that Akkermansia is
suppressed by glyphosate.
And Akkermansia is a really interesting drug because
its only food
is the sulfamucins that line the gut. So
there are cells
in the gut
lining that make these sulfamucins, which are these
complicated sugar chains with sulfates attached to them.
And then the akkermansia
eat those.
And they consume them. And they break them
down. And they break them down into small
molecules. And then they convert them to fatty
acids, like butyrate. So there's a complete cycle
where the clonocytes are eating the butyrate that's
produced by the akkermansia.
And the akkermansia are eating the sulfamucins that
are produced by the by the, by the
gut, by the colonocytes. You know? So it's
a it's a circle.
And the whole process is a distilling process
to get rid of the deuterium. That's what
I think. Because when they do that, conversion
of the sulfamucines
back into butyrate,
they go through a cycle of hydrogen gas,
and hydrogen gas is 80% depleted in deuterium.
So they produce butyrate that's low in in
deuterium
and feed it to the clonocytes.
And the clonocytes, in turn, make them make
the stuff that they can eat so they
can do it again. So it's a complete
cycle of stripping away the deuterium
from this from the food source for the
clonocytes to keep them healthy.
And and the but and into the other
part we we were talking about in regard
to how this connects, at least as I
was understanding this, is essentially that what you're
what you're highlighting here as you as you
you
to ask if you heard the term cancer
microbiome
and the discussion of whether this
overlap is causing,
essentially well, why don't you better explain it
for me? Because I you know, I'm just
kind of I I read this earlier, and
I found this really insightful. And I that's
why I was thinking about the larger connection
to how it was used and and the
weak point. But so how does this then
translate into the effect on the the gut?
So So that that's what I'm trying to
say. Well, there's another interesting thing is that
Akkermansia produces a protein called p nine, and
that protein stimulates the clonocytes to release
the l cells in the in the in
the colon to release GLP one. I don't
know if you've heard of GLP one. Mhmm.
Wegovy?
How about Wegovy?
No. You're explaining. Yeah. So there's these drugs
that have come out recently,
originally to treat diabetes and now to treat
obesity, and people are going wild over these
drugs. They're very expensive GLP-one
analogs.
They're called receptor.
They bind to the receptor
and pretend to be GLP-one.
And there's a huge market for these. And
I think the health care industry is going
to go broke.
The insurance
agencies are going to go broke on paying
for these GLP-one
analogs because people are taking them like candy
to try to lose weight. And they work
really well. And
they can cause you to delete, to get
rid of a lot of weight. And as
soon as you go off of them, you
blow up. I mean, you very fast gain
that weight back. You can't Is this Ozempic
overlap? Ozempic, right. Ozempic and Wegovy, yes.
And there's other ones, too. But they're very
the industry is having a ball with this
stuff stuff because they're selling it to huge
numbers of people, and they're trying to get
the insurance to cover it, which it does
for diabetes and sometimes also for obesity.
And so and then the person gets hooked
on it.
And then the insurance says, well, we can't
afford to keep on paying this, so we're
gonna take away your insurance. You don't have
to pay it out of pocket.
And now they can't afford it, and so
they go off it, and then they get
fat again. They get they grow they grow
back fat. They they lose protein, and they
and they get back fat. So they end
up with a higher proportion of fat in
their body. Yeah. It's just And more weight
than they started with. It's a complete nightmare.
Is it possible not to see that as
some kind of a design? You know? And
I'll there's I'm not gonna name names, but
those examples of very well known people out
there going through that process right now on
camera. You know? And it's it's interesting to
me that it you know? Do do you
find that dangerous?
Other than just the obvious danger of that
happening with your the rapid change in body
weight and everything else, is there the Ozempic
or what or whatever other versions of them,
do you find that to be dangerous to
the body based on how you feel about
it? So. I put it right up there
with statin drugs. I hate the statin drugs,
and I I wrote about them, you know,
years ago. That was another big topic of
mine. I think they're a big mistake. I
don't think anyone should be taking a statin
drug. Yeah. And, again, cholesterol is so essential
for your body. Right. And to think that
you would take a drug that would actually
be toxic to the liver to prevent it
from being able to make cholesterol is just
insanity in my view. And the science backs
you up. I mean, you were right when
you made that claim. This but that as
you've probably documented yourself, peer reviewed science, you
know, it it's I mean, somebody, who got
a lot of attention for it during the
COVID time was doctor Malhotra, who came out
and made that argument as well. But it's
I I mean, do do you do you
think the body of science backs that up
and it's just being disregarded?
Oh, absolutely.
I I think there's no question.
And and and you look at the number
needed to treat versus the number needed to
cause harm,
no question. I mean, I don't I don't
know that there'd be anybody who would have
such a bad situation with heart disease that
that statins would be well motivated. I really
don't
for them. You know? Yeah. I think you're
basically a poison. You're taking a poison.
Yeah. Well, I mean, isn't that the exact
reality of of how chemotherapy operates or any
number? Absolutely. And that's another one I don't
agree with. You know? I was like, cancer
cancer is very interesting because I think cancer
is actually and I've written about this.
Cancer comes about because of too much deuterium
in the mitochondria.
Mhmm. And cancer is is a way to
fight back. It's really, really interesting. When you
look at a cancer, a tumor and how
it works, you know that they have this
very weird metabolism where they take take in
lots of sugar,
and they use glycolysis to turn it into
lactate.
And then they ship out the lactate and
give it to the to anybody else besides
themselves if they're unloading a lot of lactate.
And lactate is a low nutrient nutrient.
And so and then they have these, immune
cells that swarm into the tumor environment. You
know, the immune cells are in there,
but the tumor tells the immune cells, stand
down. Stand down. So immune cells refuse to
fight the tumor. They let it grow.
And they do that because the tumor is
giving them all kinds of good stuff to
help them get well. So I think the
tumor is actually it's it's it's a the
tumor shuts down its mitochondria.
It doesn't use them the way you normally
would.
And as a consequence, it's not really sensitive
to deuterium. So the tumor doesn't mind if
it gets a lot of deuterium in its
mitochondria. And it actually concentrates
deuterium in the cytoplasm,
and it pumps out deuterium depleted protons into
the environment
along with the lactate and other things as
well. It's it's really the tumor
is working very hard to try to suck
up deuterium
and deliver to the rest of the world
things that are deuterium depleted, water,
nutrients,
and then the,
the, the immune cells that are hanging out
in the tumor environment, they're not there to
fight the tumor. They're there to take advantage
of what the tumor is giving them. And
once they get healed, their mitochondria get healed
because the tumor has been providing them with
all this good
stuff. Now they're strong. They could go fight
the tumor. So they will fight the tumor
and clear it out. In fact, the tumor
cells will decide to shut down once they
notice
that they've solved the problem. So the whole
problem with the tumor How interesting. Is actually
systemic deuterium toxicity in the mitochondria. So in
that in that vein of thought, then the
if then what in in is it the
the the rest of the toxicity from the
world that keeps these things becoming a like,
so if somebody in the world has developed
cancer and they
flesh out all the negative things causing it,
in that vein of thought, it would eventually
just peter itself out? I think so. I
think if you just went on to a
very into a very, very healthy environment,
if you have cancer and you go to
a very healthy environment and probably drink detergent
depleted water, that's actually a very the best
use for detergent depleted water is to treat
cancer. And and there's,
Somlyai is I don't know how to pronounce
it. S o m l y a I.
He's really the leader in this space.
And I believe he's in in Hungary or
something. He's
been really promoting the idea. And he's written
a couple of books. I read one of
his books Showing that he gave these cancer
patients to turn depleted water
And it and it really helped them to
live a lot longer than their predicted life
lifespan
Through that water and just the water alone,
you know, but but I think going to
a very
you know, move to some place where there's
no toxicities in the air. The air is
fresh, and the water is fresh, and then
eat organic food and eat lots of, high
density high nutrient density foods.
That's how I would treat a cancer if
I if I had cancer. That's how I
would treat it.
Interesting. Yeah. I mean and, you know, back
to the the obvious, you know, starting point
of today is that what we're
leaning into now is is
scientifically
shown repeatedly to be causing cancer. And so
Yeah. I mean, the the chemotherapy causes cancer.
And and and also, if you think about
it, it what it they target the chemotherapy
towards cells that proliferate because cancer cells proliferate,
but the immune cells proliferate
too. You know, they're they're cells that had
do a lot of proliferation.
And so they the the chemotherapy is very
sent is very dangerous, very damaging to the
immune cells. And so it's killing off the
immune cells in the tumor
that are there to fight the tumor if
they can fix their mitochondria.
And and the tumor will fix their mitochondria
if they let it. So in other words,
you're killing off
both the source, which is the tumor of
the deuterium depleted nutrients,
and the machinery to fight the tumor if
you could fix that problem. So in other
words, you're doing the exact opposite thing from
what you should be doing
in taking chemotherapy
to try to cure the cancer. It's very
counterintuitive, but what you need to be doing
is fix the immune system. Right. Exactly. Way
you fix it is by providing it with
low deuterium nutrients. Absolutely. So eat a high
fat diet,
drink deuterium depleted water, get out in the
sunlight because that can actually help to stimulate
a lot of good things. The sunlight is
very, very health health giving.
And as you just described, you know, the
kind of a scorched earth attack, you know,
it it in many cases can wipe out
the cancer as well, but this is why
it comes swinging back around in about six
months. Of course, they only map it to
four and go, hey. Success. It's gone. And
then it's It forces, the the tumor to
to metastasize is what it does. So the
chemo increases the risk of metastasis,
and metastasis is what ultimately kills you,
usually.
Yeah. That well, I was just simply pointing
out that that the what what you described
there creates the you know, because it wipes
out everything as well. It it just causes
and, of course, if you do not box
out all the negative things that caused in
the first place, it just inevitably comes back
around. And that's what it seems to be
the the usual cycle of people in this
the world, it seems, but more so in
this country than anywhere I can see where
it just becomes a usual process.
I I don't know off the top of
your head. You know, last time I checked,
the numbers were something like one in every
two people in this country will get cancer
before they die. It's so frightening. It's really
frightening. Yeah.
It it's sad. And and and we've so
poorly
our understanding that the the the pharmaceutical industry's
understanding of cancer is completely broken. Also, of
course, Alzheimer's disease, that's another one where they're
putting these drugs together that are not useful.
And they're they're totally focused on amyloid beta,
which is the wrong place to focus for
Alzheimer's disease. They don't get anything right. I
don't it does look like
they're intentionally trying to figure out a way
to fool us into thinking that they're treating
something
and get us to buy these expensive chemicals
that aren't working. I mean, it just it's
just insane. It really is. I agree. Well,
what other,
you know, because we talked about cancer, obviously,
and that's one of the most obvious points
in around glyphosate or any others. But what
other,
other ailments do you feel are being potentially
caused by specifically glyphosate, but we can broaden
it into the larger point of what these
things are, herbicide, pesticide. But, you know, in
your mind from glyphosate,
other
ailments that are being caused? And then on
top of that, are there other things that
are being used that you feel are are
adding to that that, you know, this kind
of synergistic problem? Well, what I'd like to
talk about is glyphosate and melatonin because that
is where I've really centered lately. And I'm
I've just written a
Draft of a chapter for a book that
don Hubert is going to be editing the
editor of a book on glyphosate
And and so we I've very this is
very fresh on my mind, but I've really
come to an epiphany
lately
that glyphosate disruption of melatonin
is central to glyphosate's toxicity.
Mhmm. Melatonin. And so,
and and glyphosate
so first of all, melatonin is also very,
very interesting. And as you know, melatonin
produced by the pineal gland at night, it
it regulates the wake sleep cycle.
Lots and lots of people sleep disorder is
one of the diseases one of the conditions
that's going up dramatically
in matched to glyphosate use going up, you
know, very strong match.
And, and so sleep disorder is it's also
connected to autism, and many people are suffering
from sleep disorder.
And melatonin
is critical for regulating the wake sleep cycle.
The pineal gland, is getting damaged by glyphosate.
And I've written a paper about this where
glyphosate chelates aluminum in the gut
and and carries it across the gut barrier,
takes it up to the brain. The pineal
gland is outside of the brain blood brain
barrier, and the pineal gland tends to accumulate
a lot more aluminum than other parts of
the brain, you know, anyway.
But glyphosate delivers aluminum to the pineal gland,
And the pineal gland gets more and more
aluminum as you get older,
and the aluminum wrecks it, and then the
pineal gland can't can't work, and it can't
deliver the the melatonin.
Worse than that, the melatonin itself is compromised
by glyphosate.
Now melatonin is a product of the shikimate
pathway.
Tryptophan comes from the shikimate pathway, which glyphosate
blocks.
The micros can't make enough tryptophan. You have
a tryptophan deficiency,
and that's gonna lead to a melatonin deficiency
because you need tryptophan as a precursor to
melatonin.
On top of that, this is a really
interesting part that I had I only figured
out the last couple years maybe. And I
have a paper on that that's
available. It's a preprint and is under review
right now, so I'm hoping to get that
published
on melatonin and the unique aspect of it,
which has to do with the methylation pathways.
And it's really fascinating. Let me see if
I can explain this to you because, you
know, you think of the pineal gland
as the source of melatonin in the body.
And,
but what you don't realize is that the
gut mic in the micro
not the gut micros, but the but the
and the cells in the gut, the human
cells in the gut, produce 400
times as much
melatonin as the as the pineal gland does.
400 times as much. And that melatonin
is shipped to the liver,
and the liver metabolizes it. And and one
of the with cyp enzymes, cytochrome p four
fifty enzymes.
And one of those enzymes converts, melatonin
back to the thing that it came from.
So in other words, there's a it comes
from serotonin,
and serotonin,
it goes to acetylserotonin
and then to melatonin in two steps. And
the and the the enzyme that converts acetylserotonin
to melatonin,
is in the gut, and that's the one
how they make the melatonin. And that comes
from the tryptophan, which is deficient because of
glyphosate.
The melatonin gets shipped to the liver. The
liver consumes the meth it's an extra methyl
group that's added
to the melatonin
through that and and so that through that
reaction. Mhmm. And that methyl group gets taken
off by the liver
and and metabolize completely to carbon dioxide and
to four molecules of water. And that water
is gonna be deuterium depleted because the methyl
group is deuterium depleted. So in other words,
the methyls are produced by the microbes
from the from the hydrogen gas, so that
makes the methyls very low in deuterium.
And then the methyls are attached to meth
to methionine. You have this acetyl
SAMe is the universal methyl donor.
But the but that methyl came you can
trace it back to the microbes. You can
trace it back to the hydrogen gas. So
it's very low in deuterium.
And the, and that's why the methylation pathways
are so important because they're there's the methyls
are shipped all over the place and attached
to all kinds of things, the DNA, the
RNA, the proteins.
It's a storage,
mechanism for the methyls. But the methyls are
attached to
serotonin to make melatonin,
and then the methyls are taken off
of the melatonin and turned into four molecules
of deuterium depleted water.
And that helps the liver to keep its
its,
levels low, its levels of deuterium low. And
more than that, every almost most of the
cells in the body
make their own melatonin,
and then they consume it. They make the
melatonin. They convert it back to serotonin back
back and forth,
Endocetylserotonin
to melatonin, back to endocetylserotonin,
back to melatonin, back and forth, back and
forth. And every time they do that, they
produce four molecules of deuterium depleted water in
the mitochondria
in pretty much all the cells.
And and this is something that's only become,
researchers have only become aware of this recently.
And and so far, nobody's connected it to
deuterium except me.
But that's what I think is going on.
The melatonin is extremely important for distributing deuterium
depleted water
to to the whole body.
This is bad. And that and and melatonin
does that, and it's and it's taken back
from the gut microbes without hydrogen gas. And
glyphosate disrupts
many of the enzymes that are involved in
that process, including the cytochrome p four fifty
enzymes, which are the critical ones that actually
metabolize the melatonin,
you know, and and get and produce the
deuterium capillars.
Glyphosate suppresses cytochrome p four fifty enzymes
in the liver.
So you you killed that right away. So
you you killed the melatonin on both sides.
You can't make it, and you can't metabolize
it. And and you said it also alters
the melatonin itself that it's you know, that
so basically, all around, it is it is
affecting that that entire process.
And so and what are the outcomes of
that? You said sleep disorder. Anything disorder. Yeah.
But melatonin if you look at the literature,
there is just a huge number of papers.
I I I keep finding new
ones going and going back quite a while,
but especially recently.
So many papers trying to figure out melatonin
is is pure god. I mean, it's like
so
many cancers are associated with melatonin deficiency.
Many cancers. And and, of course, autism, is
associated with melatonin deficiency, sleep disorder.
Melatonin is important also for the GLP one
thing. So,
the diabetes, obesity.
Melatonin protects from obesity. I mean, it's just
incredible, and it it has a antioxidant capability.
It can actually soak up the free radicals
that are produced by the mitochondria. So the
mitochondria,
they like to have melatonin, and they have
a lot. They actually accumulate my mitochondria. Mitochondria
accumulate melatonin against the concentration gradient.
They have a lot more than the cytoplasm
around them. They know how to suck it
up. You know? So they'll take it in,
but they'll also make it. The the mitochondria
have have the capability of making the melatonin
and of breaking it down. So they go
through this cycle back and forth, back and
forth. What they're doing is metabolizing those methyl
groups and turning them into detergent depleted water
in the mitochondria.
And that is so crucial for mitochondrial health.
It's right up there with glutathione. You know?
And glutathione actually does a similar thing. Doesn't
that make your point for you about the
the water point? That if that's what your
body's doing naturally, then therefore, that's obviously something
that we should be seeking out in life?
Of course. Yeah. I mean, people are well
aware that melatonin is incredibly,
beneficial
in in to the mitochondria.
I meant I meant And also deleted water
you were referring Oh, the germ deuterium depleted
water. Yeah. That's what melatonin is making for
the mitochondria. So that would make you think
that you might even wanna give them some
deuterium depleted water. Absolutely. Right. Your body doing
it itself. Clearly, that's an indication that it's
something that we could probably do to benefit
ourselves. If I stand back and look at
all of what you're discussing today,
as we've already pointed out more than once
that it feels deliberate, but it's like you
I can't help but think if somebody was
like, okay, I'm gonna design
this in a way that basically just attacked
every
biological funk, you know, organic process of our
body. It just feels like it's it's clearly
cutting at the base of all these things,
and then each one of them seem to
interconnect with each other. I I don't know
how you don't look at that as an
individual out there and see that there's some
level of conscious thought put into how that
works. That's my opinion. Right? And I feel
like in some way you'd agree with that,
but I we should all question that because
that's an opinion. But to me, it feels
deliberate. And I think all of this I
mean, and I go back to the beginning
of why that's happening now. And, you know,
I I grapple with whether I think the
current administration
is trying to do what it can within
a broken system or whether it's being you
know, I I just I I look at
the outcome, and what I see is a
continual direction going in the wrong way. And
I, you know, I think that your work
and all of this has become
more relevant than ever because people are starting
to come back around to see how right
you've been the entire time. And this is
just one point of one point, excuse me,
of glyphosate. Now imagine all the other things
that Stephanie's discussed or any other group about
the health issues that we're hiding from and
that RFK and, you know, all the rest
are suddenly kind of walking back away from
for whatever reason. You know? Yeah. Well, they
have a tremendous pressure from the industry.
The pharmaceutical industry really has controlled the government
for so
long. And you see still people criticizing RFK,
fiercely criticizing him. I mean, it's just amazing
to me that people can't see that he's
he's on the right path. You know? Trust
him. Let him go. And Trump has been
remarkably
willing to let RFK Jr.
Go wild is what he had said. And
I think he's kind of honored that. But
there's just, like, so much resistance from the
pharmaceutical industry and also, of course, from the
farmers
because they can't envision how they could do
agriculture without glyphosate.
They they need to they need to figure
that out. And and certainly, the government should
be investing money in regenerative agriculture because we
need to fix the soil.
And if we fix the soil, we fix
the plants. The plants actually will be more
resistant to the insects and to the fungus.
Yeah. So we we get these other problems
because of glyphosate. Glyphosate causes the fungus problem.
Right. That's one part we didn't even get
into about the I mean, you mentioned it,
but we didn't get in-depth in regard to
how it destroys the soil itself and how
that causes these fiber. You did mention it,
but there's a whole point we can get
into on all that. But, you know, I
I I will say I I I appreciate
your object your I'm still the objectivity, obviously,
but your optimism, excuse me, in regard to
the, Trump administration. I I I mean, I
I happen to disagree
my personal opinion on where I think they're
going. I don't Well, it is true that
Trump and and and RFK are not on
the same page. It's pretty clear with respect
to agriculture.
I'd like to put, though, that what you're
saying is the truth. Like, I'd like to
you know, I I have hope that that
at some point that because, look, we can
all acknowledge that they're clearly maneuvering through a
ridiculously broken system. And so if this ends
up in a in a point, you know,
regardless of the the the current reality, you
know, I'll praise the the positive action. I
just can't I have a hard time seeing
a a Well, I'll tell you one thing
is it's it's bringing bringing it to light.
I mean, so many more people know about
glyphosate now than did before. Right? It's bringing
it to light. So in a way,
negative news is actually a way to publicize
the problem
and then to get people to listen to
people like me who are telling them, look.
This is true. This is a problem. We
have to fix it. You know? And if
you get enough people interested
in, and and they can personally change their
lifestyle by buying certified organic food. That's what
I do. When we shop at the grocery
store, we buy only certified organic food.
And if you do that too, you'll be
healthier. I can guarantee it. I agree. And
that you're right. That's definitely an obviously positive
byproduct of all of this. But it's you
know, why it got there, that that's for
everyone to decide for themselves. But regardless, I'm
glad people are looking at your work and
understanding the problem. But I think it just
it it amounts it ends up it it
really depends on where it ends up. You
know? And I'd I'd like I'm gonna, as
always, be objective and wait for the outcome.
You know? But there's been a lot of
lot of moves that have kind of went
back to the direction. And, you know, whether
it's industry or not, all I care about
is as as you've been fighting for is
the positive outcome, the health, the the reality
of our system, you know, what our health
could be like if we weren't being doused
with all this stuff. And we could talk
about dioxins and PFAS and just, you know,
all the different things that we can do.
Yes.
It seems pretty hopeless. Sometimes you just wonder
how you can possibly stay alive in this
toxic world. It's really frustrating.
Seriously. And you have no control over it.
It's really,
it's I feel sorry for people who live
next door to a farm where they're using
glyphosate, you know, and they just can't get
away from it. Seriously.
Yeah. And on that note, I'll I'll I'll
rep I hope people will look into your
work because not only do you talk about
the obvious problems and the research behind science
behind it, but what path people can take
to to solve that. And so maybe we
can end on that. Is there you know,
with all we're discussing,
is is there, you know, a direction or
a site or an item or something you
could direct people to that might give them,
you know, something to fight back? You know?
Well, I I have a web web page,
stephaniestephaniesenate.net.
They could check that out. I have links
to various,
interviews and whatnot there, papers that I've written.
Yeah. I'm really, I'm really excited with what
I'm figuring out lately. I'm very excited about
it, and it's frustrating that I have to
fight so hard against, everybody else to convince
them that I'm right about this toxicity of
glyphosate because I think it's the most dangerous
chemical in our environment today. And we have
a lot of dangerous chemicals, but I think
glyphosate is number one, partly because we think
it's safe
and partly because it's pervasive
in our food supply, in our water, in
the in the in the rain, you know,
in in the air.
It's it's everywhere. We can't avoid it. Yeah.
And because we think it's safe, we don't,
the government doesn't, try to stop it. So,
and and people have been so convinced that
it's safe that they don't think it's a
problem eating the food.
Yeah. So we need to change all of
that.
Hear hear. And, of course, I'll include,
plenty of different studies in here from from
Stephanie and and the different work around what
we've been discussing and the reality of how
That's nice.
Yeah. I've got several papers, and they're growing
growing list. I've got several to review right
now, so I'm quite excited about that. But
we'll see if I can push them through.
They're very hard to get pushed through review
as you might imagine because,
there's a lot of resistance.
Yes. Well, hopefully, we can touch base again
as this continues forward. And, you know, thanks
for joining again. And for anybody out there,
as always, thank you, you know,
thank you for being here. And and, really,
I I wanna say again, I stress that
people make sure you check out her work
and understand the actual you know, because we
can sit and talk for an hour, but
it's very difficult to get into the nitty
gritty of this stuff, and it's worth reading
those books for yourself. So I'll leave it
there. And thank you for joining. And as
always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Thank you.