What if . . . ?

There are several questions in my mind that nag me night and day on this thing called “wheat,” bothersome issues that, if any are true, suggest some very sinister goings-on. This is an “adults only” conversation, as it’s just too upsetting to many people to hear such speculations. So read on at your own peril.

We know that this thing being sold to us called “wheat” really isn’t . . . or, at least it is a far genetic stretch different from its natural predecessor. It stands 2 feet tall, short and stocky, a distant reminder of what wheat once was. The marked changes in outward appearance have been accompanied by similar changes at the biochemical level of the various components of the plant, changes that have, for the most part, not been studied for their effects in humans.

We know, for instance, that the gliadin protein of wheat, a component of gluten, was changed during the genetic shenanigans of the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in the creation of a powerful appetite stimulant whose introduction into the food supply was followed by an increase in calorie intake of 440 calories per day. Such issues make me ask myself several questions, questions that I don’t yet have full answers to. So, here they are.

What if . . . The changes introduced into the gliadin protein of wheat in the 1970s were intentional? What if geneticists were charged with not only the goal of increasing yield-per-acre, but also charged with finding a way to increase appetite? After all, a piece of cake or pie in 1940 made with something closer to traditional wheat was surely tasty and invited a desire for more, though not as marked an effect as modern wheat. Could they have known that a few amino acids shifted in the right direction in the gliadin protein would increase appetite by 440 calories per day?

What if . . . Smart food scientists of the 1980s noticed that this new gliadin had the ability to increase appetite and, rather than sound the alarm to the public, kept quiet and said, “Shhhhhh. Let’s keep quiet about this. Let’s just put it in everything!” thereby increasing sales and revenues. While I have no proof that they knew this, it’s the only explanation I can think of to explain why wheat is in virtually all processed foods: to increase appetite.

What if . . . The lessons learned with wheat will be (have been?) applied to other foods, foods engineered to have appetite-stimulating properties and thereby further increasing consumption? After all, Big Agribusiness has already shown us that they would like to keep us in the dark about the changes introduced into our foods, as evidenced by their vigorous opposition to the Truth in Labeling Act with their stand, in effect, stating that it is none of our business if they genetically-modify foods.

What if . . . Big Food gets its way and you no longer eat green peppers, kale, and eggs from local producers, but only consume foods that are created from low-cost commodity ingredients, all sourced from high-yield genetic strains, all conveniently subsidized by the U.S. government, that permit substantial markup. A little cornstarch, a little wheat flour, some high-fructose corn syrup, some sucrose, add a little food coloring, and–ouila–you’ve got 99% of all processed foods, complete with several hundred percent markup at the checkout register. (Then, of course, you co-opt the nutritionally blind, like the American Heart Association, and purchase a “heart healthy” endorsement or other similar meaningless purported health benefit.)

What if . . . Diabetes drug manufacturers knew this all along, from day one, that introducing foods that increase blood sugar extravagantly would predictably enlarge the franchise for diabetes drugs? What if they knew that consuming a diet low in fat and rich in “healthy whole grains” would escalate the incidence of diabetes, creating the worst epidemic of diabetes the world has ever seen, thereby increasing the need for multiple diabetes drugs costing as much as $1500 per month per person? (If we viewed diabetes as a “market,” this plan has succeeded on an unprecedented scale.)Why, for instance, does the Wheat Lobby have such close financial ties to the diabetes drug industry?

Well, if any of this were true, it all leads to one place: money. Would it be such a big shock to know that some smart, ruthless people with foresight and savvy, along with a touch of indifference to the welfare of their fellow man, would use any of the above strategies for enormous personal financial gain?

I don’t think so. Now, to gather the proof of any one of these notions . . .

This entry was posted in Genetic changes, Wheat industry. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to What if . . . ?

  1. Dr. Davis says:

    Hi, Cancer–

    An intriguing hypothesis!

    I have no experience with the Brugada Syndrome, so have limited insights. The majority of sudden cardiac death occurs in people with relatively easily identified structural myocardial defects, such as idiopathic hypertrophic subaortic stenosis, hypertrophic or dilated cardiomyopathies, right ventricular dysplasia, or ischemic heart disease.

    But I believe you are proposing something entirely different. Hmmmm. Don”t know. Be nice to bounce this off someone whose primary interest is ion channels and dysrhyhtmias.

  2. Pingback: Live Well Laugh Often Stepping

  3. Eliza says:

    Write to IHOP (International House of Pancakes).
    Do you know that they put pancake batter (i.e., wheat) into their omelettes? Read it on the menu.
    If you want to avoid wheat you have to avoid omelettes or ask to have them make it without the wheat!

    • DeLee says:

      how about just avoiding ihop…my guess is that even the removal of pancake batter from their omelets will not result in a healthful end result. in a low priced chain restaurant, it”s really difficult to KNOW what you are getting….are the eggs really fresh EGGS? what is REALLY in that “cheese”? What type of oil is that omelet cooked in? IMHO, we”d all be better off just eating breakfast, and most other meals, at home….that way you KNOW what you are eating!

  4. Holly says:

    Dr. Davis,

    I hope I am able to share a link with you here. If not, this story is available at the Futurity site (futurity.org – research news from top universities…)

    http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/diabetes-may-begin-in-the-gut/

    Diabetes may begin in the gut: “Scientists studying mice have made a surprising discovery about the origin of diabetes. The disease may start in the intestines.”

    Holly

  5. Jenny says:

    Today, someone told me that in bread made the old fashioned way – slow and repeated risings – the yeast reduces the effects of gluten in the flour. Whereas the fast method does not have this effect. This would compound the effects of modern wheat, and even if the manufacturers weren”t aware of the latter, they MUST have been aware of the former effect.

  6. hitfan says:

    Of course the diabetic drug industry wants to increase it”s market share so that they can make more money.

    My biggest worry is that if ”Wheat Belly” gains really serious traction (as in a large percentage of the population begins to boycott wheat), that the wheat lobby will collude with other food manufacturers or bribe the government to mandate that many foodstuffs be injected with ”healthy whole grains”.

    Imagine if gliadin were to be forcibly introduced into the very fruits and vegetables that we eat so that we can”t escape the stuff at all.

    Just look at the scam that is ethanol. 1.13 barrels of oil of energy is actually used up to produce 1 barrel equivalent in ethanol. Yet it gets increasingly mandated at most service stations. And ethanol has less energy efficiency. And it wrecks your engine.

    • Uncle Roscoe says:

      hitfan: “Just look at the scam that is ethanol. 1.13 barrels of oil of energy is actually used up to produce 1 barrel equivalent in ethanol. Yet it gets increasingly mandated at most service stations. And ethanol has less energy efficiency. And it wrecks your engine.”

      …..Arthur Daniels Midland (ADM) Corporation.

      Ethanol has probably 65% of the energy content of drip gasoline by volume. Ethanol or some such additive is needed to reduce the volatility (increase the octane) of gasoline for use in internal combustion engines. Past that though, ethanol is harmful. One of its biggest harms is its ability to absorb water. Watered down gasoline harms engines and makes them run rough. Without ethanol water used to stall engines. The people who put the water in got prosecuted. Now these incidents just go unnoticed.

      Then we can talk about curbside “recycling”. It”s all about garbage companies.

    • Dr. Davis says:

      A twist I hadn”t considered, Hit. Very scary potential.

      Yes, indeed. Imagine the protein for the unique polypeptide sequence within gliadin that is responsible for appetite stimulation was cloned and implanted into other foods. Wow. That would have limitless potential from the perspective of appetite- and revenue-stimulation.

  7. Amy says:

    Dr. Davis -
    I am writing to let you know that I owe you my life. I read your book, quit wheat, and felt a noticeable improvement after just three weeks. I have suffered from autonomic dysfunction, POTS, IBS, migraine, fibromyalgia, obesity, high triglyerides, PCOS, and even ovarian cancer. I went to an allergist asking for a wheat blood test, as my primary care doctor”s suggestion to curing my diarrhea was to “take more fiber – here are some Citrucel samples.” I just got the call back that my IGA results were indicative of Celiac (even three weeks after wheat suspension.) I have so many mixed emotions right now…Firstly, relief that I finally know what”s wrong with me. Secondly, overwhelming gratitude for your work. Thirdly, rage that none of the 6 doctors I have seen over the past 5 years have EVER suggested Celiac even though all the clinical indicators were there. Fourthly, tremendous sadness at the “what ifs…” over my father. He died in 2009 of complications of heart disease, autoimmune diseases (polymyositis, inclusive body myositis), diabetes, lactose intolerance…) – WHAT IF he knew he had celiac. WHAT IF we could have saved him?????? You are an angel, Dr. Davis. Thank you ——— I now want to shift my life”s work to helping others. Please let me know how I can help you get the word out. If can arrange for speaking engagements for you in Ohio where I live, don”t hesitate to contact me privately…. My best to you -Amy

    • Dr. Davis says:

      Thanks for telling your story, Amy.

      I”d like to post your story as a blog post. As you know, the more people who hear about stories like yours, the more they will press for a diagnosis and/or eliminate all wheat.

      Re: speaking. If you have a specific event in mind, please feel free to call my office at 414-456-1123 and ask for Dawn, who arranges all such things.

  8. Phil says:

    “What if . . . The changes introduced into the gliadin protein of wheat in the 1970s were intentional?”
    Made me think of the tobacco companies when they got busted for intentionally adding a chemical to tobacco to make it more addictive. IMHO, any company or person that puts profits ahead of a persons health…should be hung!

  9. Duder says:

    Wheat was intentionally genetically modified in the ’60s, but not as a conspiracy to make you fat…it was to stave off a potentially catastrophic famine as the result of a massive drought. By genetically modifying wheat, they were able to grow it in less habitable environments. This new strain of wheat was so resistant to drought that it could be grown in southern climates where they previously couldn’t. This was, quite simply, a more efficient food. Costs dropped, jobs were created, famine was avoided, etc…all of the horrible things this new strain became, just weren’t considered back then. Unfortunately, when you have something that seems so incredible, why grow the inferior (original) version? This new crop phased out the old, and now we’re stuck with a sub-par cousin of wheat. It’s unfortunate for sure…but it’s not a conspiracy.