Doctor Says Genetically Modified Wheat a Perfect, Chronic Poison

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Doctor Says Genetically Modified Wheat a Perfect, Chronic Poison

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:35

By Lisa Garber
theintelhub.com
December 5, 2012

Many of us are shunning wheat for lots of reasons, but we usually cite gluten as the culprit. Cardiologist and author Dr. William Davis, however, says it’s not gluten that makes modern wheat a “perfect, chronic poison.” It’s the fact that genetically modified wheat has become the wheat we know today.

Davis spoke on “CBS This Morning” earlier this year about one of agribusiness’s biggest creations—the word “creation” not used lightly.
Genetically Modified Wheat – Increased Appetite, Altered Genome

“[Modern wheat is] an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the ‘60s and ‘70s This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there’s a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It’s not gluten. I’m not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I’m talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.”

Increasing hankerings and padding on pounds aren’t all genetically modified wheat is capable of doing. A new GM wheat in development by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CIRO), an Australian governmental research agency, may permanently alter the genes of the humans and animals that consume it.

“Through ingestion,” says Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, “these olecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes.” The double stranded RNAs present in this genetically modified wheat would also survive cooking, digestion, and generations of life.

But what about all the hype over whole grains? Several health resources like the Mayo Clinic advocate ditching white wheat for less processed varieties, but Davis claims that is like replacing unfiltered with filtered cigarettes.GM Whole Grains Like Filtered Cigarettes

“That’s the logic of nutrition; it’s a deeply flawed logic.”

Instead of genetically modified wheat, Davis advocates eating “real foods” like avocados, olives, olive oil, eats, and vegetables. While Davis does tell consumers to favor food least likely to be changed by agribusiness, the CBS source, unfortunately, does not directly address variables like organic and small-scale farming versus conventionally raised and pesticide-drenched vegetables or pasture-raised versus factory-farmed meats.
GM Not the Answer to Feeding the Nation

Genetically modified foods pose a threat to people (not just consumers), animals, and the planet Pesticides for GM corn pollute our water and often contaminate organic products. Although the issue of feeding the world is a complex and emotional one, GM food—and the poisoning of entire populations of people—is not the answer.

http://naturalsociety.com/gm-wheat-p...-human-genome/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_1...n-doctor-says/

http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-foods/

http://naturalsociety.com/insecticid...lluting-water/

http://naturalsociety.com/organic-fo...os-pesticides/

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...n-2508446.html

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Listen to the hostility by some of you. My, my. You must have been raised on nutrient-negative, white processed bread/pasta products. Perhaps Wonder Bread?
Do you know that that does to your mind due to lack of B vitamins in that stuff.

and now they're cut off. /Sad Panda

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

and now they're cut off. /Sad Panda

I edited by adding that some of them just may be a vested interest benefiting from such foods.
Follow the money.

And now I found this by Dr. Mercola:

There is also emerging research that eating wheat, which contains gluten, can cause certain individuals to become psychotic. Most of the research on schizophrenia is focused on neurotransmitters, and the usual treatment is neuroleptic medication. However, the medicine tends to have serious side effects.

Some researchers have been looking at an unlikely suspect in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia – wheat. Many schizophrenics seem to have a history of celiac disease (gluten/wheat intolerance) as children – as much as 100 times the amount of celiac disease in the regular population.

Meanwhile, populations who traditionally eat a gluten-free diet have extremely rare occurrence of schizophrenia – just 2 in 65,000 versus close to 1 in 100 in grain-eating countries. And when populations Westernize their diets, schizophrenia becomes common.

According to Psychology Today:

"In A Case Report of the Resolution of Schizophrenic Symptoms on a Ketogenic Diet, a high fat, low carb, low protein diet (thus very low in wheat) results in the remission of psychotic symptoms in a single case report.

See what we're up against? I feel like Steve Jobs and Dr. Semmelweis.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Listen to the hostility by some of you. My, my. You must have been raised on nutrient-negative, white processed bread/pasta products. Perhaps Wonder Bread?
Do you know that that does to your mind due to lack of B vitamins in that stuff. That, or you're all a vested interest somehow who benefits from this financially in some way.

And you must have had a steady diet of lead paint growing up~

[donkhater]

Ugh....

USDA vs a snake oil salesman (Mercola)

Could there be any two more self-serving viewpoints from which to pull arguments and data?

All I know from reading this thread is that the lack of science education in this world is stunning.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Ugh....

USDA vs a snake oil salesman (Mercola)

Could there be any two more self-serving viewpoints from which to pull arguments and data?

All I know from reading this thread is that the lack of science education in this world is stunning.

Mercola has helped a lot of people and got good results on them—particularly getting them off gluten. ( as my doctor did) I've seen live testimonials.
He's an Osteopathic physician. Osteopathic physicians practice a "whole person" approach instead of just focusing on symptoms.
He is board-certified in family medicine and was chairman of the family medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center for five years.
He is trained in both traditional and natural medicine. Can't beat that combination if one seeks an integrated approach.
I'd trust him more than any govt entity. I go by results. You probably would have been one of the people who attacked Dr. Semmelweiss back in his day while allowing more women to die in childbirth until his ideas were finally accepted. That's okay, that's usually how it goes. Such things are vilified at first but accepted later. The natural food folks are ahead of the mainstream with some of their claims accepted much later.

More from his site:

In addition, I was granted fellowship status by the American College of Nutrition (ACN) in October 2012. In order to obtain fellowship status with the ACN one must meet a minimum of four requirements. Those requirements include: co-author five or more publications relevant to nutrition in referred medical or scientific journals, demonstrate significant experience in patient care, hold a doctoral degree from an institution that is accredited by the Regional Accrediting Organizations and maintain status with the ACN.

In November 2009, I was named the top Ultimate Wellness Game Changer by the Huffington Post, an honor that celebrates “100 innovators, visionaries, and leaders in 10 categories who are harnessing the power of new media to reshape their fields and change the world.” HuffPost readers voted me to the top to receive this special award.

For my insight on a variety of healthcare issues, I have been interviewed on national and local news, including:

Today Show
CNN
ABC's World News Tonight
The Dr. Oz Show
The Doctors
CBS, NBC and ABC local news shows
Time Magazine
Forbes Magazine
Dozens of Nationally Broadcast Radio Shows

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

And you must have had a steady diet of lead paint growing up~

[BucEyedPea]

Oh and Merry Christmas, Scrooges!

[RNR]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You have called me a Neocon, liberal, atheist, sociopath and a few other things I do not recall. I am none of the things you have offered. You on the other hand are precisely the only thing I have called you...batshit crazy~

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Ok are you familiar with the GM FlavrSavr tomato? What about the studies on this page? not reputable?

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo...h-risks/1notes

What studies? Those aren't studies. That's just a giant bullet list of nonfactual shit thrown on a page with no studies shown at all. No sources. No peer review of the claims.

I could go through that line by line and likely refute every bit of it, but it's just not worth it. It's all based on one book actually. And it's nothing but BS meant to scare, instead of inform. On the author's page about the book, there's even a section called "Media Manipulation" in which he defends himself against how the "Media" has tried to attack him over his book. In reality the "Media" is calling him out for self publishing a POS book full of inaccuracies.

EDIT: And apparently it's such a horrible incorrect book, that it's already been exposed for the completely nonfactual tripe that it is. There's a website already out there, that actually goes through this fool's claims line by line and provides correct scientific information about what your loony author is talking about. Wow... this POS is even more incorrect than I thought...

Here's the humorous dismantlement of all your "Studies" by Academic Review:

Genetic Roulette is Jeffrey Smith’s second self-published book in which he makes unsubstantiated claims against biotechnology. In it, he details 65 separate claims that the technology causes harm in a variety of ways. On these pages each of those claims – addressed in the same eight “sections” that correspond directly with the book – are stacked up against peer-reviewed science.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-...etic-roulette/

If you want to know why what you posted is not reputable, just browse through the above site, and you'll see why this is all wrong.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Fish

What studies? Those aren't studies. That's just a giant bullet list of nonfactual shit thrown on a page with no studies shown at all. No sources. No peer review of the claims.

I could go through that line by line and likely refute every bit of it, but it's just not worth it. It's all based on one book actually. And it's nothing but BS meant to scare, instead of inform. On the author's page about the book, there's even a section called "Media Manipulation" in which he defends himself against how the "Media" has tried to attack him over his book. In reality the "Media" is calling him out for self publishing a POS book full of inaccuracies.

EDIT: And apparently it's such a horrible incorrect book, that it's already been exposed for the completely nonfactual tripe that it is. There's a website already out there, that actually goes through this fool's claims line by line and provides correct scientific information about what your loony author is talking about. Wow... this POS is even more incorrect than I thought...

Here's the humorous dismantlement of all your "Studies" by Academic Review:



http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-...etic-roulette/

If you want to know why what you posted is not reputable, just browse through the above site, and you'll see why this is all wrong.

After reading through the first part, it seems a bit of backtracking has been done


Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The media has devoted little time and space to these critical analyses of Pusztai’s claims.

No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved (Royal Society 1999)

Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).

Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals. In their review of the Pusztai claims, the Royal Society concluded that scientists should submit their work to journals (Royal Society 1999). Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either. Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers: (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472192.stm). Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops (Shantharum and others 2008).

Again very vague comebacks and experts not cited.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Dr. John Hagelin said it well in his statement to the EPA back in 2000, printed in the Providence Journal:

"Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the genetic engineering of our food – and the widespread presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets – is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven otherwise."

http://archive.hagelin.org/happening/starlink.htm

Dr. John Hagelin turned loony with Transcendental Meditation. He was once a promising scientists, but is now laughed at by the field of science for trying to insist that traditional holistic teachings are "Scientific". That, and he tried running for president of the US under the Natural Law party. (LOL, I see how you discovered him)

The guy thinks that people can pray away crime and war. Is there really any more that needs said about his credibility?

Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics.

He has found a home in the Natural Law party, where another group present had made a similar passage from credibility to absurdity. They included Ross Perot's longtime political advisor Russell Verney and several other disgruntled former leaders of the Reform Party. Kicked out of the party after refusing to recognize Pat Buchanan as the party's presidential pick, they staked their political credibility to Hagelin by testifying he was the rightful nominee of a hijacked party.

Their presence illustrated a bizarre tale of how the deposed leaders of a once formidable, solidly Middle American party formed in the cauldron of early-'90s populism were lulled by a candidate and political party under the swoon of the strange New Age charlatan. Hagelin is a disciple of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the aged founder of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement and its related worldwide moneymaking empire that achieved fame after the Beatles briefly joined his flock in the '60s. The thought that regular meditation has health benefits is nearly mainstream today, but the structure built around the TM philosophy strikes religious notes and is much more questionable, even cult-like, critics say. One of the Maharishi's deepest-held beliefs is that the aura created by platoons of incredibly focused meditators prevents crime and wars, an assertion backers claim is supported by scientific "research"--much of it done by Hagelin.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2000-1...od-vibrations/

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

After reading through the first part, it seems a bit of backtracking has been done


Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The media has devoted little time and space to these critical analyses of Pusztai’s claims.

No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved (Royal Society 1999)

Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).

Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals. In their review of the Pusztai claims, the Royal Society concluded that scientists should submit their work to journals (Royal Society 1999). Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either. Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers: (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472192.stm). Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops (Shantharum and others 2008).

Again very vague comebacks and experts not cited.

LOL... no. It's not vague, and the experts were certainly cited.

Do you see the section down at the bottom? The part you neglected to include with your copy and paste?

This part is called a "References" section. You see, some authors like to include what's called "References" when they make important claims about the factual nature of things. This way if information is in doubt, or if it sounds too fantastical, there is a "Reference" to the source of the information. I can understand why you would be unfamiliar with this practice...

References:

Ewen SW and Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354 :1353-1354.

Fedoroff NV, and Brown NM (2004). Chapter 9 Poisoned rats or poisoned wells in Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.

Kuiper HA, Noteborn HPJM , and Peijnenburg ACM (1999).Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods.

Lancet 354 :1315-1316. Lemaux P (2008). Section 3.2.Were potatoes genetically engineered with a lectin protein unsafe to eat? In Review: Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part I).

Annual Review Plant Biology 59:771–812. Royal Society UK (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes. royalsociety.org/Review-of-data-on-possible-toxicity-of-GM-potatoes/PDF file. Accessed Dec 6 2008.

Shantharam S, Sullia SB, and Swamy GS (2008). Peer review contestations in the era of transgenic crops. Current Science 95(2):167-168. Discusses the problems involved in bypassing the peer review system in science and other misuse of scientific evidence as it applies to agricultural biotechnology.