The latest cover-up of America’s killer wheat crop

In the past I’ve talked about conflicts of interest and disclosure in modern standards of care? Well, needless to say, these dodgy recommendations aren’t limited to medical guidelines.

You’ll find the same kinds of lies swirling around wheat. And the consequences have been just as devastating to public health.

Case in point: A group of researchers writing in a recent issue of the Journal of Cereal Science , rejected the idea that wheat causes obesity or sickness as “rubbish.” (And yes, that’s the name of a real publication–I couldn’t make that one up if I tried.)

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of this rhetoric. After all, this is the second grossly misleading dismissal to take place in the nutrition world so far this year. (And it’s only February!)

First they went after vitamin advocates, and urged people to “stop wasting money” on supplements. And now, they want everyone to think doctors who speak out against wheat–myself among them–are crazy.

I’m sorry, but wheat causes very real health problems for an increasingly high number of Americans. Yet, these so-called “experts” have the audacity to insist this basic fact (which we, as doctors with extensive clinical experience, know to be true) is based on impure science.

Well guess what? If you ask a bunch of cereal guys if cereal is bad for you, what do you think they’re going to say?

Never mind all the patients I’ve treated, who have improved the minute I eliminated gluten from their diets. Or all the suspicious blood test results I’ve seen. Or the fact that farmers feed grain to animals in order to fatten them up. And pay no attention to the fact that there have been dozens of best-selling books that have helped millions lose weight by taking wheat off the menu. (Including The Hamptons Diet, The Atkins Diet, The South Beach Diet, The Carbohydrate Addict’s Diet, and Wheat Belly, just to name a few.)

Apparently, it’s simply all rubbish.

These scientists (and I use that term loosely) argue that targeting one type of food as a cause of obesity–as opposed to chalking weight gain up to overconsumption and underactivity in general–is a mistake. Despite the fact that wheat sales have grown in direct proportion to this country’s collectively expanding waistline.

One look at the food court of a typical American mall will supply all the evidence you need. Yet, these “experts” continue to deny the mere suggestion that wheat plays any role in our nation’s ballooning health crisis. Or that it could have any adverse effect whatsoever outside of a full-fledged allergy.

Yet the same team was quick to assign blame to fat, high fructose corn syrup, and added sugar as bonafide causes of obesity.

I mean, honestly. Do they have any idea what they’re talking about?

Did they forget wheat becomes sugar in the body?

But this simple fact doesn’t even cover half the danger wheat poses to human health. It’s also a poison because of modern genetic modification. And these researchers practically admit it themselves!

They acknowledge modern wheat crops exist because of GMO farming–leading to higher yields, greater pest resistance, and ease of processing. But, they say, there’s simply no scientific proof that these benefits come at a price, nutritionally or otherwise.

And do you want to know why there’s no proof?

Because no one will pay for that study. Big Agribusiness controls the purse strings here. And they’ve got all their funds tied up in another big experiment. One that uses all of us as test subjects, whether we like it or not.

As far as they’re concerned, the less anyone knows about the harmful effects of genetic modification the better.

This “research” is nothing more than a dying industry in the throes of damage control. They’re trying to stop the rapid profit declines they continue to face, as the public finds out the truth, in spite of their efforts.

And the truth is, just like sugar, wheat kills.


“Does wheat make us fat and sick?” Journal of Cereal Science. September 2013, Volume 58, Issue 2, pages 209-215. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2013.06.002