Parkinson's disease is a smouldering campfire - ALS is a raging wildfire.
How does glyphosate travel to the brain?
Small incremental doses from eating contaminated food are enzymatically transported by the vagus nereve via the gut/brain axis. The result is a smouldering inflammatory process.
Or you could inhale the poison like I did and ignite a wildfire of inflammation in the brain and endocrine system via the nose to brain pathway and bypass all opportunity to neutralize the poisoning.
Considering that consumption of glyphosate is likely increasing with the passage of time due to farming practices and other means, it is worth mentioning that melatonin has shown benefit in early animal studies of helping to protect the kidneys, liver and reproductive system from glyphosate. Another consideration is that glyphosate is thought to reduce tryptophan production which would most likely further reduce melatonin production. Melatonin is a fairly smart molecule!🙂
I’m glad you posted this, Silent Echoes! Thank You! I was exposed to Round-Up, for a number of years, with a large garden. I have felt for some time, that Round-Up could be a causal factor, in my ‘acquiring’ Parkinson’s Disease. For several years, I have discussed with numerous lawyer’s, who deal with this kind of litigation, about proving that Round-Up is a causal factor, for my PD. They all stated that the ingredients, in Round-Up have been proven to cause cancer, and would only accept clients that had acquired cancer. Paraquat has been designated as an ingredient, in industrial crop/farming pesticide operations, and has been proven to be a causal factor for PD; however, I’ve not been exposed to Paraquat. According to what I was told, Paraquat is not an ingredient in Round-Up. I did not see it listed, on Round-Up labels, that I’ve seen. So, this information helps, in terms of my looking for proof, regarding the impact of Round-Up, with my PD!
The evidence is mounting for a Roundup Parkinson's lawsuit. It's really hard to get doctors and researchers to come forward in support of causation because of the risk to their careers.
Where was the warning label? You need to be wearing a hazmat suit and respirator to use Roundup, but the public has been told it's safe. Roundup even comes in a handy spray bottle - do you think people put on gloves to spray it? And what about the residue? Roundup takes months to years to break down, now you have pets and barefoot little kids walking around where it's been sprayed.
I find your analysis bizarre - and keep struggling to work out what you are trying to achieve. If it's a class action against Monsanto I don't think you are going to achieve much by extreme hyperbole and complete indifference to reality
It's not that I am looking to either deny that modern chemicals like glyphosate contribute to a higher incidence of PD, nor to protect the companies that manufacture these chemicals.
It's just that if you insist on blaming the wrong causes, you are unlikely to find a solution. If your primary concern is to cure the bloody disease, or at least meaningfully improve it and slow its progress, as mine is, then getting side-tracked down obsessive conspiracy theory fantasies is not going to achieve the goal.
You appear to believe, that there is a direct causal link between all PD and your chosen modern chemicals. This ignores inconvenient truths like the fact that James Parkinson described the disease over 200 years ago before any of those substances existed. Equally, locally there is a relatively high incidence of Parkinsons Disease largely attributed to the vine spraying in a wine growing region. But that still amounts to probably only one in 500 people getting diagnosed with PD - by a huge margin, most of them over 55. So 499 people in 500 are exposed to the same toxins and don't get PD. That would include Serge, who sprays his vines in our village. He is 74 years old, has been spraying since he was 16, wears no protective clothing...
It's not that I am in denial that chemicals increase the prevalence of the disease. It's that they are manifestly NOT the sole or major cause. Blaming chemicals in that way only really makes sense if your obsession is a class action. If you are interested in curing people like me who have the condition, then you have to deal with why 499/500 people exposed to chemicals don't get the disease, and why people were getting it before any of these chemicals existed
It's like trying to fix your car which won't start because the carburetor is blocked, but being obsessed with the idea that the battery is to blame, because cheap chinese batteries are the cause of all problems in cars. You can rant - but you're never going to fix it.
As for it not being an age related disease, in England 122k of 55998k people have Parkinsons disease. 4166 of them are under 55. 117,761 of them are over 55. If you keep looking in the wrong place, you won't find the solution
Einstein expressed this in his famous definition of stupidity of "to keep doing the same thing, and expect a different outcome"
If we want to come up with an effective cure, treatment, condition improvement, rather than mouth off about blaming someone else for having it, and possibly claiming financial compensation, then you have to get realistic about what causes it. And toxins are clearly a part, but a very small part, of the total equation
Thank you for taking the time to respond. A group of people might also think like you and I want to understand the other side of the argument.
Do you hear yourself? I can't find any substance in your opinion to back your argument. You don't know me and you don't know all the details of my poisoning.
Wouldn't it have been better for both of us if you asked me questions instead of engaging in personal attacks?
"your analysis is BIZZARE"
"EXTREME HYPERBOLE and complete INDIFFERENCE TO REALITY""if you insist on "blaming the WRONG CAUSES, you are unlikely to find a solution"
"getting side-tracked down OBSESSIVE CONSPIRACY THEORY FANTASIES is not going to achieve the goal"
"direct causal link between all PD and your 'CHOSEN' modern chemicals" "James Parkinson described the disease over 200 years ago before any of those substances existed"
"I am [not] in denial that chemicals increase the prevalence of the disease. It's that they are manifestly NOT the sole or major cause. BLAMING CHEMICALS in that way only really makes sense if your OBSESSION is a class action." "Einstein expressed this in his famous definition of STUPIDITY of "to keep doing the same thing, and expect a different outcome"
I'll respond to these comments separately after I've had time to carefully consider my words.
Here's a post I wrote a few months ago, maybe you missed it. Perhaps you should read it now. It will give you insight into who I am and the depth of my knowledge of cause and effect.
After considering your comment the only thing I have to say is that if I showed your comment to my husband or my friends, the people who really know me - they would be very upset with you and what you said to me. They would want me to leave the forum because of the toxicity of some members. I would not be proud of myself for saying things you said - it's easy to hide behind a keyboard and say awful things that you would never have the courage to say face to face. I'm not leaving the forum. You've been reported WinnieThePoo.
Winnie your response seems a bit cold and blunt and direct .Your lack of of empathy will give supporters of this idea a lot of ammunition.
But unfortunately , you are correct. We have seen this approach many times before . They take any cause that they like, their personal favorite and then find supportive opinions and questionable studies that support their unfounded assertion.
To this minute , There is no study or data that confirms this or any other "chemical " caused Parkinsons and as much as everybody would dearly like to be able to point at something as the cause, it can not scientifically be done, yet.
A word of warning. Internet forums are quickly becoming accepted and people are discovering that if you slander a person or corporation that it is now being treated the same as if you wrote a letter to the editor of a big newspaper . Do not rely on your nom de plume to save you. Courts issue warrants to internet companies all the time and Monsanto might be a little bit too prickly to take on.
Glyphosate turns out to be much less innocent than thought. In Europe, extending the approval in November 2023 appears to be a hammerhead. Today my Dutch quality newspaper NRC (so not an internet forum Gymsack) shows how this collaborating industry from Bayer to Monsanto have manipulated their research provision for years. The comparison of WinnieThePoo with Einsteins definition of stupidity of "to keep doing the same thing, and expect a different outcome" appears to be completely misplaced here because the studies were simply not provided. As more than 20 years ago Syngenta appears to have been linked to neurotoxicity. Once this is found, the company is obliged to do further research to get approval for its product. So this did not happen.
Syngenta commissioned the study in 2001 because US agencies requested it. But European regulators never got to see the report on glyphosate on developing brains. It was not until 2022 that the study was added to the European safety dossier on glyphosate - 21 years after the report was submitted to Syngenta. Not because Syngenta itself sent it in, but because independent Swedish researchers Axel Mie and Christina Rudén of Stockholm University found out about its existence and alerted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Just in time to have it included in the safety dossier for the renewed authorisation of glyphosate.
The companies are allowed to indicate which studies are 'relevant' to the file. Many studies disapprove of the producers, for example because they have not been carried out in a standard lab according to standard procedures. Of the 12,000 glyphosate studies identified by the glyphosate group, as many as 94 percent were rated as 'unrelevant'.
The researchers Mie and Rudén identified eight more studies this year on pesticides from companies, including Syngenta and Bayer, which were known to the US EPA but not to European EFSA.
In six months, the authorisation of glyphosate will be on the European market. The Glyphosate Renewal Group has applied for re-authorisation. This means that applicants must once again demonstrate that the substance is safe. The group includes listed chemical giants such as Bayer, Dow, Monsanto and Syngenta, together accounting for a turnover of 80.4 billion euros in 2022. Weed killers grossed Bayer 8.3 billion, Syngenta 6.5 billion. You see, the (financial) interests are great, but in the meantime a lot of damage has already been done. The fine for not providing a relevant investigation is 5000 €. Fortunately for the manufacturers, this fine has never been imposed otherwise they would undoubtedly have gone bankrupt. LOL.
Scientists are now making a link between the use of pesticides, including glyphosate, and the onset of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease. Bas Bloem, professor of neurology at Radboud UMC in Nijmegen, points to various studies that support the hypothesis that glyphosate could cause parkinson's. The Parkinson's Association, trade union FNV and nature organisation Nature and the Environment are jointly taking action in the Netherlands against the use of glyphosate in agriculture. It's time for us to wake up and take action too!
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Aspirin targets key protein in neurodegenerative diseases - updates? 
Tauroursodeoxycholic acid: a potential therapeutic tool in neurodegenerative diseases 2022 (TUDCA)
STUDY: \"Physical Activity Linked to Larger Volume, Increased Health of Brain\"
