The globe-spanning presence of wheat and it’s exalted status among secular and sacred
institutions alike, differentiates it from all other foods presently enjoyed by this planet’s
human inhabitants. And yet the unparalleled rise of wheat as the very catalyst for the
emergence of ancient civilization has not occurred without a great price. While wheat
was the engine of civilization’s expansion and was glorified as a “necessary food,” both
in the physical (staff of life) and spiritual sense (the body of Christ), those suffering from
celiac disease are living testimony to the lesser known dark side of wheat. A study of
celiac disease may help unlock the mystery of why modern man, who dines daily at the
table of wheat, is the sickest animal yet to have arisen on this strange planet of ours.
THE CELIAC ICEBERG
Celiac disease (CD) was once considered an extremely rare affliction, limited to
individuals of European origin. Today, however, a growing number of studies1 indicate
that Celiac disease is found throughout the world at a rate of up to 1 in every 133 persons,
which is several orders of magnitude higher than previously estimated.
These findings have led researchers to visualize CD as an iceberg.2 The tip of the iceberg
represents the relatively small number of the world’s population whose diagnosis of
celiac disease depends on the gross presentation of clinical symptoms. This is the
classical case of CD characterized by gastrointestinal symptoms, malabsorption and
malnourishment, and confirmed with the “gold standard” of an intestinal biopsy. The
submerged middle portion of the iceberg is largely invisible to classical clinical
diagnosis, but not to modern serological screening methods such as antibody testing.3
This middle portion is composed of asymptomatic and latent celiac disease as well as
“out of the intestine” varieties of wheat intolerance. Finally, at the base of this massive
iceberg sits approximately 20-30% of the world’s population – those who have been
found to carry the HLA-DQ locus of genetic susceptibility to celiac disease on
chromosome 6.4
The “Celiac Iceberg” may not simply illustrate the problems and issues associated with
diagnosis and disease prevalence, but may represent the need for a paradigm shift in how
we view both CD and wheat consumption among non-CD populations.
First let us address the traditional view of CD as a rare, but clinically distinct species of
genetically-determined disease, which I believe is now running itself aground upon the
emerging, post-Genomic perspective, whose implications for understanding and treating
disease are Titanic in proportion.
THE GENES ARE NOT TO BE BLAMED, BUT WHAT WE CHOOSE TO
EXPOSE THEM TO
Despite common misconceptions, monogenic diseases, or diseases that result from errors
in the nucleotide sequence of a single gene are exceedingly rare. Perhaps only 1% of all
diseases can be considered to fall within this category, and Celiac disease is not one of
them. In fact, following the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) in 2003 it
is no longer accurate to say that our genes “cause” disease, any more than it is accurate to
say that DNA is sufficient to account for all the proteins in our body (which it is not!).
Despite initial expectations, the HGP revealed that there are only 30,000-35,000 genes in
human DNA (genome), rather than the 100,000 + believed necessary to encode the
100,000 + proteins found in the human body (proteome).
The “blueprint” model of genetics: one gene → one protein → one cellular behavior,
which was once the holy grail of biology, has now been supplanted by a model of the cell
where epigenetic factors (literally: “beyond the control of the gene”) are primary in
determining how DNA will be interpreted, translated and expressed. A single gene can
be used by the cell to express a multitude of proteins and it is not the DNA itself that
determines how or what genes will be expressed. Rather, it is to the epigenetic factors
that we must look to understand what makes a liver cell different from a skin cell or brain
cell. All of these cells share the exact same 3 billion base pairs that make up our DNA
code, but it is the epigenetic factors, e.g. regulatory proteins and post-translational
modifications, that make the determination as to which genes to turn on and which to
silence, resulting in each cell’s unique phenotype. Moreover, epigenetic factors are
directly and indirectly influenced by the presence or absence of key nutrients in the diet,
as well as exposures to chemicals, pathogens and other environmental influences. In a
nutshell, what we eat, and what we are exposed to in our environment directly affects our
DNA and its expression.
Within the horizon of this new perspective even classical monogenic diseases like Cystic
Fibrosis (CF) can be viewed in a new, more promising light. In CF many of the adverse
changes that result from the defective expression of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane
Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene may be preventable or reversible, owing to the fact
that the misfolding of the CFTR gene product has been shown to undergo partial or full
correction (in the rodent model) when exposed to phytochemicals found in turmeric,
cayenne, and soybean.5 Moreover, nutritional deficiencies of seleniun, zinc, riboflavin,
vitamin e, etc. in the womb or early in life, may “trigger” the faulty expression or folding
patterns of the CFTR gene in Cystic Fibrosis which otherwise might not have undergone
epigenetic activation.6 This would explain why it is possible to live into the late seventies
with this condition, as was the case for Katherine Shores (1925-2004). The implications
of these findings are rather extraordinary: epigenetic and not genetic factors are primary
in determining disease outcome. Even if we were to exlude the possibility of the
reversible correction of certain monogenic diseases, the basic lesson from the post-
Genomic era is that we can’t blame our DNA for causing disease, rather, it may have
more to do with what we choose to expose our DNA to.
CELIAC DISEASE REVISITED
What all of this means for CD is that if the genetic susceptibility locus, HLA DQ, does
not determine the exact clinical outcome of the disease7, or, if the HLA genes are
activated not as a cause, but as a consequence of the disease process8, we may need to
shift our epidemiological focus from viewing this as a classical “disease” involving the
passivity of a subject controlled by aberrant genes to viewing it as an expression of a
natural, protective response to the ingestion of something that the human body was not
designed to consume.9
If we view Celiac disease not as an unhealthy response to a healthy food, but as a healthy
response to an unhealthy food, classical CD symptoms like diarrhea may make more
sense. Diarrhea can be the body’s way to reduce the duration of exposure to a toxin or
pathogen, and villous atrophy can be the body’s way to prevent the absorption and
systemic effects of chronic exposure to wheat.
New insights into the genetic differences between humans and diverse species such as mouse, rat, chicken
and turkey who share leptin genes, indicate that the seeds of cereal grasses were not introduced into
the human diet until as recently as 500 generations ago. Within this context arguments against
eating wheat take on greater relevance.
I believe we would be better served to view the symptom’s of CD as expressions of
bodily intelligence rather than bodily deviancy. We must shift the focus back to the
disease trigger, which is wheat itself.
People with celiac may actually have an advantage over the unafflicted because those
who are “non-symptomatic” and whose wheat intolerance goes undiagnosed or
misdiagnosed for lacking classical symptoms may suffer in ways that are equally or more
damaging, but expressed more subtly, or in distant organs. Within this view Celiac
disease would be redefined as a protective (healthy?) response to exposure to an
inappropriate substance, whereas “asymptomatic” ingestion of the grain with its
concomitant “out of the intestine” and mostly silent symptoms, would be considered the
unhealthy response insofar as it does not signal in an obvious and acute manner that there
is a problem with consuming wheat.
It is possible that Celiac disease represents both an extreme reaction to a global, speciesspecific
intolerance to wheat we all share as a matter of degree, and that CD symptoms
reflect the body’s innate intelligence when faced with the consumption of something that
is inherently toxic. Let us illustrate this point using Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA), as
an example.
WGA is glycoprotein classified as a lectin and is known to play a key role in kidney
pathologies, such as IgA nephropathy. In the article: “Do dietary lectins cause disease?”
the Allergist David L J Freed points out that WGA binds to “glomerular capillary walls,
mesangial cells and tubules of human kidney and (in rodents) binds igA and induces IgA
mesangial deposits,” indicating that wheat consumption may lead to kidney damage in
susceptible individuals.10 Indeed, a study from the Mario Negri Institute for
Pharmacological Research in Milan Italy published in 2007 in the International Journal
of Cancer looked at bread consumption and the risk of kidney cancer. They found that
those who consumed the most bread had a 94% higher risk of developing kidney cancer
compared to those who consumed the least bread.11 Given the inherently toxic effect that
WGA may have on kidney function, it is possible that in certain genetically predisposed
individuals, e.g. HLA-DQ positive, the body – in its innate intelligence – makes an
executive decision: either continue to allow damage to the kidneys (if not also other
organs) until kidney failure and rapid death result, or launch an autoimmune attack on the
villi to prevent the absorption of the offending substance which results in a prolonged
though relatively malnourished life. Is this not the explanation given for the body’s
reflexive formation of mucous following exposure to certain highly allergenic or
potentially toxic foods, e.g. dairy products, sugar, etc? The mucous coats the offending
substance, preventing its absorption and facilitating safe elimination via the
gastrointestinal tract. From this perspective the HLA-DQ locus of disease susceptibility
in the Celiac is not simply activated but utilized as defensive adaptation to continual
exposure to an inappropriate substance. In those who do not have the HLA-DQ locus, an
autoimmune destruction of the villi will not occur as rapidly, and exposure to the
universally toxic effects of WGA will with all likelihood go unabated until silent damage
to distant organs precipitates into the diagnosis of a seemingly non-wheat consumption
related classical disease species.
Loss of kidney function may only be the “tip of the iceberg,” when it comes to the
possible adverse effects that wheat proteins and wheat lectin can generate in the body. If
kidney cancer is a likely possibility, then other cancers may eventually be linked to wheat
consumption as well. This correlation would fly in the face of globally sanctioned and
reified assumptions about the inherent benefits of wheat consumption. It would require
we suspend cultural, socio-economic, political and even religious assumptions about its
inherent benefits. In many ways, the reassessment of the value of wheat as a food
requires a William Boroughs-like moment of shocking clarity when we perceive “in a
frozen moment….what is on the end of every fork.” Let’s take a closer look at what is on
the end of our fork.
OUR BIOLOGICALLY INAPPROPRIATE DIET
In a previous article,12 I discussed the role that wheat plays as an industrial adhesive (e.g.
paints, paper mache’, and book binding-glue) in order to illustrate the point that it may
not be such a good thing for us to eat. The problem is implicit in the word gluten, which
literally means “glue” in Latin and in words like pastry and pasta, which derives from
wheatpaste, the original concoction of wheat flour and water which made such good
plaster in ancient times. What gives gluten its adhesive and difficult-to-digest qualities
are the high levels of disulfide bonds it contains. These same sulfur-to-sulfur bonds are
found in hair and vulcanized rubber products, which we all know are difficult to
decompose and are responsible for the sulfurous odor they give off when burned.
There will be 676 million metric tons of wheat produced this year alone, making it the
primary cereal of temperate regions and third most prolific cereal grass on the planet.
This global dominance of wheat is emblemized by fact that the Food & Agricultural
Organization (FAO) – which is the United Nation’s international agency for defeating
hunger. – uses a head of wheat as its official symbol. Any effort to indict the credibility
of this “king of grains” will prove challenging. As Rudolf Hauschka once remarked,
wheat is “a kind of earth-spanning organism.” It has vast socio-economic, political, and
cultural significance. For example, in the Catholic Church, a wafer made of wheat is
considered irreplaceable as the body of Christ. .
Our dependence on wheat is matched only by its dependence on us. As the human
lifeform has spread accross the planet, so has the grain We have assumed total
responsibility for all phases of the wheat life cycle: from fending off its pests, to
providing its ideal growing conditions, to facilitating reproduction and expansion into
new territories. We have grown so inextricably interdependent that neither species is
sustainable at current population levels without this symbiotic relationship.
It is this mutual envelopment and codependence may explain why our culture has for so
long consistently confined wheat intolerance to categorically distinct, “genetically-based”
diseases like “Celiac.” These categorizations may be needed in order to protect us from
the realization that wheat exerts a vast number of deleterious effects on human health, in
the same way that “lactose intolerance” distracts attention from the deeper problems
associated with the casein protein found in cow’s milk. Rather than see wheat for what it
very well may be: a biologically inappropriate food source, we “blame the victim,” and
look for genetic explanations for what’s wrong with small subsections of our population
who have the most obvious forms of intolerance to wheat consumption, e.g. Celiac,
Dermatitis Herpetiformis, etc. The medical justification for these classifications may be
secondary to economic and cultural imperatives that require the inherent problems
associated with wheat consumption be minimized or occluded.
In all probability the Celiac genotype represents a surviving vestigial branch of a once
universal genotype, which through accident or intention, have had through successive
generations only limited exposure to wheat. The Celiac genotype, no doubt, survived
through numerous bottlenecks or “die offs” represented by a dramatic shift from hunted
and foraged/gathered foods to gluten-grain consumption, and for whatever reason simply
did not have adequate time to adapt or select out the gluten-grain incompatible genes.
The Celiac response may indeed reflect back to us what was once a species-wide
intolerance to a novel new food source: the seed storage form of the monocotyledonous
cereal grasses which our species only began consuming 1-500 generations ago at the
advent of the Neolithic transition (10-12,000 BC). Let us return to the image of the
Celiac iceberg for greater clarification.
OUR SUBMERGED GRAIN-FREE METABOLIC PREHISTORY
The iceberg metaphor is an excellent way to expand our understanding of what was once
considered to be an extraordinarily rare disease into one that has statistical relevance for
us all, but it has a few limitations. For one, it reiterates the commonly held view that
Celiac is a numerically distinct disease entity or “disease island,” floating alongside other
numerically distinct disease “ice cubes” in the vast sea of normal health. Though
accurate in describing the sense of social and psychological isolation many of the
afflicted feel, the Celiac iceberg/condition may not be a distinct disease entity at all.
Although the HLA-DQ locus of disease susceptibility on chromosome 6 offers us a place
to project blame, I believe we need to shift the emphasis of responsibility for the
condition back to the disease “trigger” itself: namely, wheat and other prolamine rich
grains, e.g. barley, rye, spelt, and oats, and without which the typical afflictions we call
Celiac would not exist. Within the horizon of this view the “Celiac iceberg” is not
actually free floating but an outcropping from an entire submerged subcontinent,
representing our long-forgotten (cultural time) but relatively recent metabolic prehistory
as hunters-and-gatherers (biological time), where grain consumption was with all
likelihood non-existent, except in instances of near-starvation.
The pressure on the celiac to be viewed as an exceptional case or deviation form the
norm, may have everything to do with our preconscious belief that wheat, and grains as a
whole are the “health foods,” and very little to do with a rigorous investigations of the
facts.
Grains have been heralded since time immemorial as the “staff of life,” when in fact they
are more accurately described as a cane, precariously propping up a body starved of the
nutrient-dense, low-starch vegetables, fruits, edible seeds and meats, they have so
thoroughly supplanted (c.f. Paleolithic Diet). Most of the diseases of affluence, e.g. type
2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, cancer, etc. can be linked to a grain-based
diet, including secondary “hidden sources” of grain consumption in grain-fed fish,
poultry, meat and milk products.
Our modern belief that grains make for good food, is simply not supported by the facts.
The cereal grasses are within an entirely different family: monocotyledonous (one leaf)
than that from which our body sustained itself for what amounts to hundreds of
thousands, if not millions of years: dicotyledonous (two-leaf). The preponderance of
scientific evidence points to a human origin in the tropical rain forests of Africa where
dicotyledonous fruits would have been available for year round consumption. It would
not have been monocotyledonous plants, but the flesh of hunted animals that would have
allowed for the migration out of Africa 60,000 years ago into the Northern latitudes
where vegetation would have been sparse if not non-existent during winter months, and
collecting and cooking grains would have been improbable given the low nutrient and
caloric content of grains and the inadequate development of pyrotechnology and
associated cooking utensils necessary to consume them with any efficiency. It was not
until the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago that our human ancestors would have
slowly transitioned to a cereal grass based diet coterminous with emergence of
civilization. 20,000 years is probably not enough time to fully adapt to the consumption
of grains. Even animals like cows with thousands of years of a head start and that are
designed to graze on monocotyledons and who are equipped as ruminants with the four chambered
fore-stomach enabling the breakdown of cellulose and anti-nutrient rich
plants, are not designed to consume grains. Cows are designed to consume the sprouted
mature form of the grasses and not their seed storage form. Grains are so acidic/toxic in
reaction that exclusively grain-fed cattle are prone to developing severe acidosis and
subsequent liver abscesses and infections, etc. Feeding wheat to cattle provides an even
greater challenge:
“Beef: Feeding wheat to ruminants requires some caution as it tends to be more apt than
other cereal grains to cause acute indigestion in animals which are unadapted to it. The
primary problem appears to be the high gluten content of which wheat in the rumen can
result in a "pasty" consistency to the rumen contents and reduced rumen motility.”
(source: Ontario ministry of Agriculture food & Rural affairs)
Seeds, after all, are the "babies" of these plants, and are invested with not only the entire
hope for continuance of its species, but a vast armory of anti-nutrients to help it
accomplish this task: toxic lectins, phytates and oxalates, alpha-amalyase and trypsin
inhibitors, and endocrine disrupters. These not so appetizing phytochemicals enable
plants to resist predation of their seeds, or at least preventing them from "going out
without a punch."
WHEAT: AN EXCEPTIONALLY UNWHOLESOME GRAIN.
Wheat presents a special case insofar as wild and selective breeding has produced
variations which include up to 6 sets of chromosomes (3 genomes worth!) capable of
generating a massive number of proteins each with a distinct potentiality for antigenicity.
Common bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), for instance, has over 23,788 proteins
cataloged thus far.13 In fact, the genome for common bread wheat is actually 6.5 times
larger than that of the human genome! 14
With up to 25% gluten content in some varieties of wheat, it is amazing that we continue
to consider “glue-eating” a normal behavior, whereas wheat-avoidance is left to the
“celiac” who is still perceived by the majority of health care practitioners as a “freak”
reaction to the consumption of something intrinsically wholesome.
Thankfully we don’t need to rely on our intuition, or even (not so) common sense to draw
conclusions about the inherently unhealthy nature of wheat. A wide range of
investigation has occurred over the past decade revealing the problem with the alcohol
soluble protein component of wheat known as gliadin, the glycoprotein known as lectin
(Wheat Germ Agglutinin), the exorphin known as gliamorphin, and the excitotoxic
potentials of high levels of aspartic and glutamic acid found in wheat. Add to these the
normal anti-nutrient content found in grains, phytates, enzyme inhibitors, etc. and you
have a substance which we may consider the farthest thing from wholesome.
The remainder of this article will demonstrate the following adverse effects of wheat on
both celiac and non-celiac populations: 1) wheat causes damage to the intestines 2) wheat
causes intestinal permeability 3) wheat has pharmacologically active properties 4) wheat
causes damage that is “out of the intestine” affecting distant organs 5) wheat exhibits
molecular mimicry 6) wheat contains high concentrations of excitoxins.
1) WHEAT GLIADIN CREATES IMMUNE MEDIATED DAMAGE TO THE
INTESTINES
Gliadin is classified as a prolamin, which is a wheat storage protein high in the amino
acids proline and glutamine and soluble in strong alcohol solutions. Gliadin, once
deamidated by the enzyme Tissue Transglutaminase, is considered the primary epitope
for T-cell activation and subsequent autoimmune destruction of intestinal villi. And yet,
gliadin does not need to activate an autoimmune response, e.g. Celiac disease, in order to
have a deleterious effect on intestinal tissue.
In a study published in GUT in 2007 a group of researchers asked themselves the
question: “Is gliadin really safe for non-coeliac individuals?” In order to test the
hypothesis that an innate immune response to gliadin is common in patients with Celiac
disease and without Celiac disease, intestinal biopsy cultures were taken from both
groups and challenged with crude gliadin, the gliadin synthetic 19-mer (19 amino acid
long gliadin peptide) and 33-mer deamidated peptides. Results showed that all patients
with or without Celiac disease when challenged with the various forms of gliadin
produced an interleukin-15-mediated response. The researchers concluded:
“The data obtained in this pilot study supports the hypothesis that gluten elicits its
harmful effect, throughout an IL15 innate immune response, on all individuals [my
italics].”15
The primary difference between the two groups is that the Celiac disease patients
experienced both an innate and an adaptive immune response to the gliadin, whereas the
non-Celiacs experienced only the innate response. The researchers hypothesized that the
difference between the two groups may be attributable to greater genetic susceptibility at
the HLA-DQ locus for triggering an adaptive immune response, higher levels of immune
mediators or receptors, or perhaps greater permeability in the Celiac intestine. It is
possible that over and above the possibility of greater genetic susceptibility, most of the
differences are from epigenetic factors that are influenced by the presence or absence of
certain nutrients in the diet. Other factors such as exposure to NSAIDs like naproxen or
aspirin can profoundly increase intestinal permeability in the non-Celiac, rendering them
susceptible to gliadin’s potential at activating secondary adaptive immune responses.
This may explain why in up to 5% of all cases of classically defined Celiac Disease the
typical HLA-DQ haplotypes are not found. However, determining the factors associated
greater or lesser degrees of susceptibility to gliadin’s intrinsically toxic effect should be a
secondary to the fact that it is has been demonstrated toxic to both non-Celiacs and
Celiacs.
2) WHEAT GLIADIN CREATES INTESTINAL PERMEABILITY
Gliadin upregulates the production of a protein known as zonulin, which modulates
intestinal permeability. Over-expression of zonulin is involved in a number of
autoimmune disorders, including Celiac disease and Type 1 diabetes. Researchers have
studied the effect of gliadin on increased zonulin production and subsequent gut
permeability in both Celiac and non-Celiac intestines, and have found that “gliadin
activiates zonulin signaling irrespective of the genetic expression of autoimmunity,
leading to increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules.”16 These results
indicate, once again, that a pathological response to wheat gluten is a normal or human
species specific response, and not based entirely on genetic susceptibilities. Because
intestinal permeability is associated a wide range of disease states, including
cardiovascular illness, liver disease and many autoimmune disorders, I believe this
research indicates that gliadin (and therefore wheat) should be avoided as a matter of
principle.
3) WHEAT GLIADIN HAS PHARMACOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
Gliadin can be broken down into various amino acid lengths or peptides. Gliadorphin is a
7 amino acid long peptide: Tyr-Pro-Gln-Pro-Gln-Pro-Phe which forms when the
gastrointestinal system is compromised. When digestive enzymes are insufficient to
break gliadorphin down into 2-3 amino acid lengths and a compromised intestinal wall
allows for the leakage of the entire 7 amino acid long fragment into the blood,
glaidorphin can pass through to the brain through circumventricular organs and activate
opioid receptors resulting in disrupted brain function.
There have been a number of gluten exorphines identified: gluten exorphine A4, A5, B4,
B5 and C, any many of them have been hypothesized to play a role in autism,
schizophrenia, ADHD and related neurological conditions. In the same way that the
Celiac Iceberg illustrated the illusion that intolerance or susceptibility to wheat’s ill
effects are the exceptionally rare case, it is possible if not probable that wheat exerts
pharmacological activity in everyone, and that what distinguishes the schizophrenic or
autistic from the functional wheat consumer is the degree to which they are effected.
Beneath the tip of the “Gluten Iceberg,” if you will, we might find these opiate-like
peptides to be responsible for bread’s general popularity as a “comfort food”, and our
use of phrases like “I love bread,” or “this bread is to die for” to be indicative of wheat’s
narcotic properties. I believe a strong argument can be made that the agricultural
revolution that occurred approximately 10-12,000 years ago as we shifted out of the
Paleolithic into the Neolithic era was precipitated as much by environmental necessities
and human ingenuity, as it was by the addictive qualities of psychoactive peptides in the
grains themselves. The world-historical reorganization of society, culture and
consciousness accomplished through the symbiotic relationship with cereal grasses, may
have had as much to do with our ability to master agriculture, as to be mastered by it.
The presence of pharmacologically active peptides would have further sweetened the
deal, making it hard to distance ourselves from what became a global fascination with
wheat.
An interesting example of wheat’s addictive potential pertains to the Roman army. The
Roman Empire was once known as the “Wheat Empire,” with soldiers being paid in wheat
rations. Rome’s entire war machine, and its vast expansion, was predicated on the availability
of wheat. Forts were actually granaries, holding up to a year’s worth of grain in order to
endure sieges from their enemies. Historians describe soldiers’ punishment included being
deprived of wheat rations and being given barley instead. The Roman Empire went on to
facilitate the global dissemination of wheat cultivation which fostered a form of imperialism
with biological as well as cultural roots.
The Roman appreciation for wheat, like our own, may have less to do with its nutritional
value as “health food” than its ability to generate a unique narcotic reaction. It may fulfill
our hunger while generating repetitive, ceaseless craving for more of the same, and by
doing so, enabling the surreptitious control of human behavior. Other researchers have
come to similar conclusions. According to the biologists Greg Wadley & Angus Martin:
“Cereals have important qualities that differentiate them from most other drugs. They are
a food source as well as a drug, and can be stored and transported easily. They are
ingested in frequent small doses (not occasional large ones), and do not impede work
performance in most people. A desire for the drug, even cravings or withdrawal, can be
confused with hunger. These features make cereals the ideal facilitator of civilisation
(and may also have contributed to the long delay in recognising their pharmacological
properties).” 17
4) WHEAT LECTIN (WGA) DAMAGES OUR TISSUE.
Wheat contains a lectin known as Wheat Germ Agglutinin which is responsible for
causing direct, non-immune mediated damage to our intestines, and subsequent to entry
into the bloodstream, damage to distant organs in our body.
Lectins are sugar-binding proteins which are highly selective for their sugar moieties. It is
believed that wheat lectin, which binds to the monosaccharide N-acetyl glucosamine
(NAG), provides defense against predation from bacteria, insects and animals. Bacteria
have NAG in their cell wall, insects have an exoskeleton composed of polymers of NAG
called chitin, and the epithelial tissue of mammals, e.g. gastrointestinal tract, have a
“sugar coat” called the glycocalyx which is composed, in part, of NAG. The glycocalyx
can be found on the outer surface (apical portion) of the microvilli within the small
intestine.
There is evidence that WGA may cause increased shedding of the intestinal brush border
membrane, reduction in surface area, acceleration of cell losses and shortening of villi,
via binding to the surface of the villi18 WGA can mimic the effects of epidermal growth
factor (EGF) at the cellular level, indicating that the crypt hyperplasia seen in celiac may
be due to a mitogenic reponse induced by WGA.19 WGA has been implicated in obesity
and “leptin resistance” by blocking the receptor in the hypothalamus for the appetite
satiating hormone leptin.20 WGA has also been shown to have an insulin-mimetic action,
potentially contributing to weight gain and insulin resistance.21 And as we discussed
earlier, wheat lectin has been shown to induce IgA mediated damage to the kidney,
indicating that nephropathy and kidney cancer may be associated with wheat
consumption.
5) WHEAT PEPTIDES EXHIBIT MOLECULAR MIMICRY
Gliadorphin and gluten exporphins exhibit a form of molecular mimicry that effects the
nervous system, but other wheat proteins affect different organ systems. The digestion of
gliadin produces a 33 amino acid long peptide known as 33-mer which has a remarkable
homology to the internal sequence of pertactin, the immunodominant sequence in the
Bordetella pertussis bacteria (whooping cough). Pertactin is considered a highly
immunogenic virulence factor, and is used in vaccines to amplify the adaptive immune
response. It is possible the immune system may confuse this 33-mer with a pathogen
resulting in either or both a cell-mediated and adaptive immune response against Self.
6) WHEAT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF EXCITO-TOXINS
John B. Symes, D.V.M. (his website) is responsible for drawing attention to the potential excitotoxicity
of wheat, dairy, and soy, due to their exceptionally high levels of the non-essential amino
acids glutamic and aspartic acid. Excitotoxicity is a pathological process where glutamic
and aspartic acid cause an over-activation of the nerve cell receptors (e.g. NMDA and
AMPA receptor) leading to calcium induced nerve and brain injury. Of all cereal grasses
commonly consumed wheat contains the highest levels of glutamic acid and aspartic acid.
Glutamic acid is largely responsible for wheat’s exceptional taste. The Japanese coined
the word umami to describe the extraordinary “yummy” effect that glutamic acid exerts
on the tongue and palate, and invented monosodium glutamate (MSG) to amplify this
sensation. Though the Japanese first synthesized MSG from kelp, wheat can also be used
due to its high glutamic acid content. It is likely that wheat’s popularity, alongside its
opiate-like activity, has everything to do with the natural flavor-enhancers already
contained within it. These amino acids may contribute to neurodegenerative conditions
such as Multiple sclerosis, Alzhemier’s, Huntington’s disease, and other nervous
disorders such as Epilepsy, Attention Deficit Disorder and Migraines.
CONCLUSION
In this article we have proposed that celiac disease be viewed not as a rare “genetically
determined”disorder, but as an extreme example of our body communicating to us a
once universal, species-specific affliction: severe intolerance to wheat. Celiac disease
reflects back to us how profoundly our diet has diverged from what was until only
recently a grain free diet, and even more recently, a wheat free one. We are so
profoundly distanced from that dramatic Neolithic transition in cultural time that
“missing is any sense that anything is missing.” The body on the other hand can not help
but to remember a time when cereal grains were alien to the diet, because in biological
time it was only moments ago.
Eliminating wheat, if not all of the members of the cereal grass family and returning to
dicotyledons or pseudo-grains like quinoa, buckwheat and amaranth, may help us roll
back the hands of biological and cultural time, to a sense of clarity, health and vitality
many of us have never known before. When one eliminates wheat and fills the void left
by its absence with fruits, vegetables, high quality meats and foods consistent with our
biological needs we may begin to feel a sense of vitality that many would find hard to
imagine. If wheat really is more like a drug than a food, anesthetizing us to its ill effects
on our body, it will be difficult for us to understand its grasp upon us unless and until we
eliminate it from our diet. I encourage everyone to look upon the plight of the Celiac not
as condition alien to our own. Rather, the Celiac gives us a glimpse for how profoundly
wheat may distort and disfigure our health if we continue to expose ourselves to its ill
effects. I hope this article will provide inspiration for non-Celiacs to try a wheat free diet
and judge for themselves if it is really worth eliminating.
Deleted: and potentially
1 Celiac disease: an emerging global problem Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2002
Oct; 35 (4): 472-4
2 Richard Logan is responsible for first introducing the “Celiac Iceberg” metaphor in 1991
3 Antibody testing for gliadin, tissue transglutaminase and endomysium indicates that “silent” or “latent”
celiac disease is up to a 100 times more frequent than represented by the classical form.
4 Frontiers in Celiac Disease by Alessio Fasano, R. Troncone, D. Branski
Published by Karger Publishers, pg. 242
5 See: www.patienthealthyself.info/Cystic_Fibrosis.html for Medline citations.
6 Cystic Fibrosis: a perinatal manifestation of selenium deficiency. Wallach JD, Germaise B. In:
Hemphill DD, ed. Trace substances in environmental health. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1979;
469-76
7 Genetic dissection between silent and clinically diagnosed symptomatic forms of coeliac disease in multiplex
families. Digestive and Liver Disease 2002 Dec;34(12):842-5.
8 "Coelionomics": towards understanding the molecular pathology of coeliac disease. Clinical Chemistry and
Laboratory Medicine 2005;43(7):685-95.
9 Is gliadin really safe for non-coeliac individuals? Gut 2007;56:889-890; doi:10.1136/gut.2006.
10 “Do Dietary Lectins cause disease?” David L J Freed, BMJ 1999;318:1023-1024
11 “Food groups and renal cell carcinoma: a case-control study from Italy.” International Journal of
Cancer 2007 Feb 1;120(3):681-5.
12 Unglued: The Sticky Truth About Wheat, Dairy, Corn and Soy. Scott-Free Newsletter, Autumn 2008
13 Exploring the Plant Transcriptome through Phylogenetic Profiling. Plant Physiology Vol. 137, 2005;
pg. 33
14 An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. By Desmond S. T. Nicholl, Cambridge University Press,
2002, pg. 24
15 Footnote 7, supra.
16 “Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability: Effects on celiac and non-celiac intestinal mucosa and intestinal cell
lines.” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Apr;41(4):408-19.
17 “The origins of agriculture ? a biological perspective and a new hypothesis” by Greg Wadley & Angus Martin,
Australian Biologist 6:96- 105, June 1993
18 In vivo responses of rat intestinal epithelium to intraluminal dietary lectins. Gastroenterology. 1982
May;82(5 Pt 1):838-48.
19 Elevated levels of serum antibodies to the lectin wheat germ agglutinin in celiac children lend support to the
gluten-lectin theory of celiac disease. Pediatric Allergy Immunology 1995 May;6(2):98-102.
20 Agrarian diet and diseases of affluence – Do evolutionary novel dietary lectins cause leptin
resistance BMC Endocrine Disorders 2005, 5:10
21 Insulin-mimetic actions of wheat germ agglutinin and concanavalin A on specific mRNA levels.
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 1987 Apr;254(1):110-5.
Patient Heal Thyself
| Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic Dr. Benjamin Rush Signer of the Declaration of Independence |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Exploring the Evidence Beneath the Anecdote |
| More articles by Sayer Ji posted to Ezine.com |
