Vaxxed Cast And Crew Full Interview With Battle of New Orleans Radio Discussing CDC Whistle Blower William Thompson
Battle Nola welcomes Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Vaxxed producer Del Bigtree, Sheila Ealy, and Merck Pharmaceuticals whistle-blower Brandy Vaughn discussing the groundbreaking documentary film Vaxxed: From Cover Up To Catastrophe. Expose of CDC cover up of MMR vaccine/autism link
“Most pilots are trained to avoid these storm systems,” shouts Byron Pederson. “We’re trained to enter them.” He’s flying a King Air B200 prop jet above Maharashtra, India, toward a dense, bruise-colored monsoon cloud more than 20,000 feet from top to bottom. He dips a wing, Top Gun-style, as he circles the cumulonimbus. “Bank alert!” warns a computerized female voice from the control panel. Pederson calls her Bitchin’ Betty for all the scolding she does as he defies the generally accepted rules of aviation.
Four of us are crammed inside the tiny plane, and the air smells like stress and sweat. Pederson’s in the cockpit with Shahzad Mistry, the rookie co-pilot he’s training; I’m seated a few feet behind them, trying not to vomit on the fridge-size computer to my right that’s humming and blinking as it records meteorological data. To my left is Prakash Koliwad, chief executive officer of Kyathi Climate Modification Consultants, the cloud-seeding company based in Bangalore that commissioned this flight.
The view outside my window goes smoky gray as Pederson maneuvers the King Air inside a dark layer of heavy moisture along the cloud’s underbelly. The plane lurches and shakes. “We’re in,” says Pederson. The Vertical Speed Indicator on the dashboard climbs. We’ve entered the “updraft,” a shaft of wind at the center of all storm clouds that’s sucking the plane upward at a rate of 800 feet per minute. I can barely lift my hands—the G-force is pinning them to my lap.
“Fire left,” instructs Pederson. Mistry flips a switch on the center console and deploys a flare on the left wing. “Fire right.” There are 24 cylinders resembling sticks of dynamite wired to racks on the plane’s wings, 12 on each. The flares are filled with combustible sodium chloride—pulverized table salt mixed with a flammable potassium powder. When the switch is flipped, the end of the flare shoots orange fire and trillions of superfine salt particles are released into the cloud. Water molecules are attracted to salt, so they bond to the particles and coalesce into raindrops.
It’s early September, still monsoon season in this southwestern region of India, yet the clouds haven’t done much more than drizzle. Maharashtra is one of the largest and wealthiest of India’s 30 states, with 110 million residents. It encompasses Mumbai and other large cities, plus vast swaths of farmland. Like other agricultural regions of India, it’s in its third consecutive year of drought. More than 80 percent of its farms depend on rain for irrigation, and agriculture production has dropped by almost a third since 2013. The human impact has been severe—1,300 debt-trapped farmers have committed suicide in Maharashtra in just the past six months.
In July, the state’s minister of revenue, Eknath Khadse, took a gamble: He hired Koliwad to carry out a $4.5 million cloud-seeding program over three months and across 100 square miles in the middle of the state, the largest campaign of this kind ever attempted in India. “Our situation is severe,” says Khadse. “There is no other technology available in the world to bring more rains. We must be willing to try it.”
So Koliwad called Weather Modification Inc., the world’s largest private aerial cloud-seeding company, based in Fargo, N.D. WMI’s chief executive, Patrick Sweeney, developed a five-year technology transfer program with Koliwad that’s now in its first year. Pederson and other WMI staff are training Indian pilots, meteorologists, and Doppler radar technicians to seed clouds.
Sweeney has seeded clouds all over the world for more than 20 years, but the Maharashtra project is unique in that the circumstances are so dire. “The hardest part is managing expectations,” he says. “People in Maharashtra are hoping for a cure-all to drought. They come out and dance in the streets when it rains, they hug our pilots and say, ‘Do it again.’ But we can’t guarantee that the clouds will be there—and willing to cooperate.”
During our mission over Maharashtra, we have cooperative clouds. Twenty-two minutes after seeding the first cloud, Pederson returns to the location where he fired that initial flare. It’s pouring. “We’ve got drops!” he shouts. He dips the King Air into a victory swoop before gunning over to another cluster of clouds. My stomach churns, and I can’t hold it in any longer; I heave into my purse. Pederson doesn’t notice. The computer barks out another warning about excessive banking. He laughs and says, “Shove it, Betty.”
Cloud seeding has been controversial since it was invented by Vincent Schaefer in 1946. A chemist for General Electric, Schaefer made the first snowstorm in a laboratory freezer. The media predicted that cloud seeding could perform miracles, from dousing forest fires to ensuring white Christmases. But doubts quickly arose about the impact of meddling with nature. Concerns that cloud seeding might “steal” water from an area a cloud is traveling toward—robbing Peter to water Paul, as it were—have been dispelled. Storm clouds continually regenerate and release only a portion of their moisture when they rain, which means you can’t “wring out” all the moisture from one cloud. “If anything, the area downwind would get more precipitation from cloud seeding, not less,” says Dave Reynolds, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“There’s little dispute that if you can actually get the seeding material inside the clouds, it will enhance precipitation,” says Dan Breed, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The question is, by how much?” Just as it’s hard to predict the weather, it’s hard to really know if you’ve made it rain or not. Breed’s own research—a nine-year, $14 million government-funded study he completed last year in collaboration with WMI and the University of Wyoming—found that seeding increased snowfall 5 percent to 15 percent from clouds in two Wyoming mountain ranges.
In India, I witnessed “hygroscopic” or water-attracting cloud seeding, which is used in warm-weather regions to enhance rain, disperse fog, and clean dirty skies. Breed’s study examined the cold-weather seeding of “orographic” clouds that form above high-altitude mountains and deliver snow. This method, which is used during winters in arid western U.S. states, fills rivers and water reservoirs in the spring when the snow melts. Snow-enhancement projects are often commissioned by water managers and power companies with hydroelectric plants; for decades, Pacific Gas & Electric has spent millions annually on cloud seeding in the Sierra Nevadas.
Cold-weather seeding is done at the core of snow clouds that can reach altitudes as high as 60,000 feet: Flares filled with tiny flakes of silver iodide are ejected into the clouds’ centers. Silver iodide has a molecular structure similar to that of ice. As the silver particles drift down through the clouds, water gloms onto them as it would to ice, and snowflakes grow.
This method is also routinely used for mitigating hail storms, especially in Canada: When silver iodide particles are injected into a hail-producing storm cloud, there are suddenly more nuclei for the ice to cling to. Smaller ice pellets, or “graupel,” form rather than large hail stones.
Silver iodide in large concentrations can be harmful, but the concentrations found in snowpack after cloud seeding are often so low as to be undetectable. Breed’s NCAR study in Wyoming found that there was less silver iodide in snow and soil samples in areas where clouds had been seeded than there had been before the campaigns—either due to fluctuations in naturally occurring levels of silver iodide or because the extra water released by the seeding flushed the system.
It’s easier to measure the success of snow seeding than rain seeding, but Reynolds of the NOAA points out that even the results from snowstorm studies vary significantly. “The data is still pretty sparse,” he says. “There are very few absolutes in cloud science. What we do know is that no two clouds are alike.” This makes it difficult to control and replicate the results of cloud-seeding studies.
Despite the uncertainty, the industry is on the rise. According to the World Meteorological Organization, more than 52 countries have active cloud-seeding operations—up from 42 four years ago. In the U.S. last year, 55 cloud-seeding projects were reported to NOAA. There’s even a luxury cloud-seeding market emerging—one European company, for instance, charges a minimum of $150,000 to guarantee good wedding weather by forcing clouds to rain in the days before the event.
“The scientists want 100 percent certainty—we know in our industry from experience that, most of the time, it works,” says Koliwad. The cost of cloud seeding is negligible compared with that of drought, he adds. The Maharashtra government has spent $750 million to defray the impact of drought over the last three years; cloud seeding costs a fraction of that. “Rain is life,” says Koliwad, whose family has farmed in southwestern India for more than 300 years. “And with climate change, rain is becoming less reliable. If we can monitor it, forecast it, manage it, and enhance it—then we can survive.”
The man who’s brought cloud seeding to 31 countries on six continents works out of an unassuming airfield in North Dakota. Patrick Sweeney is 63, with thick silver hair and the compact build of a wrestler. There’s an air of J.R. Ewing about him—the confidence of a wildcatter-turned-mogul. Since he got his pilot’s license in 1974, he’s flown more than 6,000 hours of cloud-seeding expeditions. He looks low-key, driving his Chevy pickup in jeans and sunglasses, but he also owns a pair of Learjets and an amphibious plane that he takes to his compound on Bad Medicine Lake in Minnesota.
Sweeney is optimistic about the India project, but he cautions that what he does isn’t a short-term solution for drought. “This industry should be seen as long-term water management—not a drought relief deal,” he says. “If you don’t have clouds, you can hire all the cloud seeders in the world and you’re still not going to have rain.” Still, a lot of people are eager to hire him for a variety of projects: WMI, which generates roughly $20 million a year in revenue, is negotiating contracts with governments in Asia, South America, and the Middle East that could double its revenue in 2016.
As a kid, Sweeney reassembled radios for fun. He’s been working in meteorology since he was 18, when he joined the Navy and went to Vietnam, specializing in weather radar. When he enrolled at the University of North Dakota after the war, he started building advanced Doppler radars in the university’s department of atmospheric sciences. At 27 he was hired as WMI’s third employee by Wilbur Brewer, a North Dakota farmer who became interested in cloud seeding as a means to protect his crops from hail damage. At 34, Sweeney bought out Brewer and made WMI an international business.
Since then he’s built a series of multifaceted companies. WMI is located at the Fargo Jet Center—a private airport Sweeney owns with his brother, Jim. Hundreds of private planes fly in and out each year, many stopping to refuel as they ferry clients on international travel (the jet center has a famously expedient customs office). This is also where Sweeney’s mechanics equip and service the more than 100 WMI cloud-seeding aircraft—Cessnas, King Airs, and Bombardiers—they operate or have leased and sold worldwide.
Sweeney also built ICE (Ice Crystal Engineering), a company that makes cloud-seeding chemicals and supplies flares to 25 countries. ICE adds a decent sidestream of income for Sweeney, with revenue of about $3 million a year. But the bigger advantage is that it helped WMI become the only aerial seeding company that “does a full turnkey,” says Neil Brackin, WMI’s president—meaning it customizes and operates the planes and radars, manufactures the flares, and flies the missions.
They do have competitors. There are 34 private companies worldwide that do weather modification, but there’s no bigger rival in aerial cloud seeding than the Chinese government, which spends hundreds of millions a year seeding clouds in 22 of its 23 provinces, both to clear pollution above cities and to enhance rainfall for farming. China has yet to allow private companies to enter its market, but Sweeney is making inroads; he sold his first cloud-seeding plane to Beijing last year.
Thailand’s government has a Bureau of Royal Rainmaking, with hundreds of employees that WMI helped train, though the program’s still using old technology—releasing mounds of table salt from trap doors in the bellies of its planes. And when the Argentine government took over the cloud-seeding program WMI built for the country, it cut costs. Soon after, two pilots died seeding clouds above a mountain, and the project was suspended.
Sweeney says plenty of programs around the world are mismanaged or nothing more than short-term vanity projects. “Some are doing weather modification for political reasons, to make it look like they’re helping farmers, then they cut corners and don’t maintain the scientific integrity,” he bristles. “That’s what creates distrust in our industry more than anything else—the people who don’t do it right.”
The office of disaster management in Aurangabad, at the center of Maharashtra’s farming region, is located in a pale-pink building that looks like a wedding cake. What especially draws the eye isn’t the building’s color or the ornate façade but the weird thing on the roof—a huge white orb, about 80 feet in diameter, on top of a scaffolded tower. This is the latest in Doppler radar, a technology that’s improved significantly over the last decade, along with satellite data and computing power. It helps the government make sure it’s getting its money’s worth.
The orb sends out electromagnetic waves that travel hundreds of kilometers; when the waves hit rain droplets and ice crystals, they bounce back and create an image of the cloud contour. The stronger the signal, the denser the cloud and the more intense the rain. Conventional radars send out only horizontal waves, but the new generation of radars has a dual-polarization system that emits vertical and horizontal waves, enabling meteorologists to get 3D images of the interior of the cloud to see how the precipitation is developing and at what rate. The resolution of its images has increased with improved computing power. In recent years, software known as Titan (Thunderstorm identification, tracking, and nowcasting) interprets and visualizes radar data in real time, feeding it to meteorologists as pilots seed the clouds. Weather Research & Forecasting software is also able to model future storm activity with increasing accuracy.
“The combination of these things has given cloud-seeding research a tremendous push in the past 10 years,” says Roelof Bruintjes, a scientist at NCAR, “and we’ll see it redouble in the next decade.”
“The better we can see weather, the better we can model it,” adds WMI’s Brackin, “and the better we can then measure the impact of the seeding.”
Maharashtra’s minister of revenue, Khadse, is happy with the results of the first phase of the cloud-seeding effort. It produced 950 millimeters of rainfall in the seeded areas, according to local officials. “It has been enough to keep some of our crops alive,” he says. “But we understand that a project like this can only succeed over a longer duration.” His director of disaster management, Suhas Diwase, plans to move the program out of his department, which is designed to handle short-term troubleshooting. “We can’t think of this as a one-time deal,” Diwase says. Given this longer view, cloud seeding doesn’t have to succeed 100 percent of the time—it’s enough for it to work part of the time, when the clouds decide to cooperate.
NCAR’s Breed explains that this long-term mentality is the reason water managers and hydroelectric plant operators in the western U.S. have invested in cloud seeding over many decades: No matter how variable the weather is, “a 5 percent increase in snowpack from cloud seeding over time is pretty doable. Water managers are perfectly happy with 5 percent—even if they don’t get 15 percent, it’s still economical.”
Brackin adds that while scientists want to achieve a 99.99 percent probability that a technology consistently works, the industry doesn’t need that kind of certainty or consistency to succeed. He likens cloud seeding to a cutting-edge medication that’s still in development: “If you’re dealing with a serious ailment and you were offered a medicine that had a 60 percent chance of working, or even 20 percent, would you take it? You probably would.”
Jennifer Lea Reynolds
(NaturalNews) Shocking information has surfaced that once again reinforces Big Pharma’s greed and do-anything-to-sell approaches. After a review of pharma giant SmithKline Beecham’s (now GlaxoSmithKline) popular 2001 study that touted the adolescent antidepressant Paxil as effective, it was found that the drug wasn’t safe after all. Nevertheless, the greedy show must go on, right?
Here’s the deal.
The 2001 study, which was referred to as Study 329, was funded by GSK. Nothing like objectivity when funding your own research and providing findings to key journals and the people who will be taking your pill. Their information stated, “This study supports that paroxetine is beneficial in treating adolescents with major depression…” and the rest is history. Paxil, which is chemically known as paroxetine, was a must-have among depressed youngsters. Through the years, however, concern grew about the drug’s safety; people were becoming more depressed and exhibiting suicidal behaviors and violent tendencies, which was the complete opposite of what the drug was supposed to accomplish.
It’s no wonder a reanalysis of the initial study, which was recently published in the journal BMJ, found Study 329 to be riddled with flaws, including downplayed information and mislabeled details. In other words, Paxil was deemed unsafe and ineffective after all, providing an eye-opening dark side to something so many people were relying on to improve their mental health.
Reanalysis of initial Paxil study filled with flaws, involved use of public relations ghostwriters
The BMJ reanalysis stated that “…there were clinically significant increases in harms, including suicidal ideation and behaviour and other serious adverse events in the paroxetine group…” Its conclusion was as follows:
Neither paroxetine nor high dose imipramine showed efficacy for major depression in adolescents, and there was an increase in harms with both drugs. Access to primary data from trials has important implications for both clinical practice and research, including that published conclusions about efficacy and safety should not be read as authoritative. The reanalysis of Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available to increase the rigour of the evidence base.
The mess goes on. It turns out that the folks at GSK thought it would be a grand idea to hire a public relations firm to ghostwrite Study 329. Why? They were well aware of the problems it posed for adolescents, so they scrambled to cleverly wordsmith the findings to make it appear safe for use. The report was then provided to doctors, spurring the off-label use of Paxil, which GSK was ultimately fined for.
Boston Globe‘s Ed Silverman explains the greed that keeps the industry going. “Beyond matters of constitutional law and governmental oversight,” he writes, “the pharmaceutical industry is clearly angling to boost prescription sales. Of course, this would fatten bottom lines, a good thing if you happen to be a shareholder.”
That’s just half of the story.
Yes, it gets worse.
It turns out that Paxil was not FDA-approved for use in adolescents. GSK glossed over that important detail and instead involved themselves in a massive marketing campaign geared towards doctors. Did it work? You bet. In fact, it was so convincing that in just 2002 alone, 2 million Paxil prescriptions were written. Between the well-worded Study 329 and the marketing efforts, many doctors were happy to be on board.
GSK: referring to original study as “misreported” is “wrong”
What does GSK have to say about all of this?
Like a bully who can’t admit to wrongdoing and must appear big and strong in the public eye while likely having sleepless nights, GSK has taken the defensive route. Along with other team members, Dr. Martin Keller of Brown University, who led the original research says, “In summary, to describe our trial as ‘misreported’ is pejorative and wrong.”
The shameful deceit that has gone on already and continues to this day by like-minded corporations must end. Are large bank accounts and prestige among shareholders really what life is all about? Wealth over health? Human lives are at stake here, and deliberately toying with the physical and mental health of others by engaging in fraudulent behavior is nothing to be proud of.
As if there weren’t plenty of reasons already to avoid genetically modified soy and other soy products – now a new study has made eating this GM crop even less appetizing.
As I previously reported for Natural Society, GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and reproductive system – and that’s not good considering that almost 90 percent of the soy grown in the US is genetically modified.
In a study we recently shared with you, researchers in Egypt who studied rats fed a GM soy diet found that:
DNA fragmentation increased significantly after the rats were fed GM soy, and the levels of toxicity increased at 30, 60, and 90 days.
Glyphosate-tolerant enzymes were found in the blood, and as researchers pointed out, “There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health.”
The kidney’s bio-pathology increased. Blood creatinine and uric acid concentrations increased significantly in rats fed the GM diet for 30, 60, or 90 days.
Chromosomal aberrations were observed. There was a “highly significant” number of abnormal cells.
Now, a study has just been released by Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., an MIT-trained systems biologist, which states that in vitro and in vivo lab tests reveal that a diet of GM soy results in:
“[the] accumulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and a dramatic depletion of glutathione, an anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, in GMO soy, indicating that formaldehyde and glutathione are likely critical criteria for distinguishing the GMO from its non-GMO counterpart.”
This means that all those biotech claims that GM and non-GM soy are essentially the same, are nothing but hogwash.
Dr. Ayyadurai stated:
“The results demand immediate testing along with rigorous scientific standards to assure such testing is objective and replicable. It’s unbelievable such standards for testing do not already exist. The safety of our food supply demands that science deliver such modern scientific standards for approval of GMOs.”
This is yet another reason to avoid GM soy
The American Medical Association certainly doesn’t want you to seek ‘alternative’ treatments or therapies for disease, since this would put a dent in pharmaceutical drug sales. In order to shore up their monopoly on your health more completely, they are calling many MDs ‘quacks,’ suppressing natural alternatives and gagging doctors with stiff penalties.
The AMA says they plan to ‘actively defend their profession, but this means that they will ‘discipline doctors for violating medical ethics through their press involvement.’ In other words – doctors will say what the AMA wants them to, or they are in big trouble. So much for freedom of speech!
The AMA has plans to gag doctors like Dr. Oz who recently went up against GMOs and the shills who work for Monsanto, publicly calling them into question. If the AMA has their way, this kind of ‘pseudoscience,’ or in other words, logical questioning of damaging crops, or medications, will be stifled via all radio, TV, newspapers, and websites. Censorship is not dead.
The resolution of the AMA was crafted, not by a doctor, but a medical student, and uses Dr. Oz’s influence as an example of what they are trying to control:
Vox was told in an interview:
“Dr. Oz has something like 4 million viewers a day. The average physician doesn’t see a million patients in their lifetime. That’s why organized medicine should be taking action.”
The AMA, part of an organized ‘medical mafia’ in large part, doesn’t want public icons like Dr. Oz creating a stir around GMOs. They don’t want doctors who question mainstream medical science and who question pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, who have ties to Monsanto.
The AMA is not the voice of the medical profession. It represents only 17% of MDs, and many of those are free memberships given to medical students.
What the AMA does represent is a bunch of lobbyists who spend more than $218.8 million a year influencing the government for everything from medicare prices to medical coding laws.
Integrative practitioners are being attacked by the AMA because more and more doctors are waking up to the unfortunate atrocity that conventional medicine has become. When doctors can’t even use terms like ‘super food,’ ‘antioxidant,’ or ‘probiotic’ without losing their license or facing jail time here and in the EU, you have to question what happened to the medical system.
We know that neither the food or Big Pharma industries are going to change their spots overnight. If they don’t have to, they won’t, period. Such is the case with going gluten-free and the connection to good health. It doesn’t seem to matter how many actual physicians point out the tremendous benefits of going and remaining gluten-free (even if you’re not gluten sensitive), the food and pharma industries have a good deal to lose if people take note and opt out of gluten.
To that end, we’re going to be reading more articles that speak of the alleged problems with going gluten-free, at least if you are not actually sensitive to gluten. In a recent article from Consumer Reports, they list six problems with going gluten-free. Before they get into that though, they highlight a photo of a muffin cut in half. I’ve reproduced it here, but understand that this image comes from their article.
Yes, gluten-free will cost more and that is usually because they are not as widely produced and distributed as the “normal” foods that the food industry produces. It goes without saying that anything that is not as generally available as something else is going to cost more.
Usually more calories. This doesn’t necessarily have to be true (which is why they used the word “usually”), but it can be. That said, calories themselves do not automatically translate to fat or ill-health. It simply means that if a person eats 1,600 to 2,000 calories per day, they should be aware of this when consuming foods with higher calories associated with them. Generally speaking though, people who eat things like muffins (like the one shown in the image) probably don’t really care that much about what they eat.
Often less sugar. This isn’t necessarily true either. The Consumer Reports article makes absolutely no distinction between the type of sugars in foods today. Most food industry products are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which, as I’ve explained in numerous articles previously, is like eating poison. There is absolutely no government oversight and HFCS is often found to contain high amounts of mercury and other heavy metals.
HFCS became the industry sweetener in the late 1960s after being created in the lab from GMO corn stalks. It is not “natural” by any stretch. Many gluten-free foods today are sweetened with sugar cane (a natural sugar) and while yes, additional calories are often associated with it, cane sugar is easily digestible in our systems. HFCS is not digestible at all. In fact, there is nothing that binds the glucose and fructose molecules together in HFCS and because of that, this “sugar” goes directly into your blood stream. Sugar cane is broken down by the body before it is metabolized.
Increases your exposure to arsenic. Apparently, the folks at Consumer Reports couldn’t care less about your exposure to heavy metals routinely found in High Fructose Corn Syrup as they completely avoided the subject. However, they are concerned about any potential arsenic ingestion from eating rice. Consumer Reports talks about all the testing they did and yes, even other websites have gone to places like Natural Foods and tested their supposedly organic foods only to find that some of them have heavy metals in them. This is because the guidelines for growing and/or buying these foods are sometimes ignored. Grow your own or buy only where you know the food products are actually and fully organic. When they are, pesticides and other harmful chemicals are not used. Simply because something is gluten-free does not automatically mean that those foods will have an increase in arsenic or other chemicals. This is a false implication.
As noted, HFCS often has tremendous amounts of mercury and other heavy metals, yet Consumer Reports chose not to note that. It seems their goal with the article is to cast doubt on the entire gluten-free lifestyle. We need to remember that the food industry as well as Big Pharma stands to lose billions in revenue if even a small percentage of the population decides to start eating healthier.
Here’s the reality about gluten-free products according to people who actually know what they’re saying. They’re FAR better for you than NON-gluten-free products. This is from Douglas A. Wyatt, Center for Nutritional Research:
“I also suggest a gluten-free diet because gluten coats the villi in the small intestine, thereby trapping any pathogens in the infected area of the bowel.” 
Wyatt points to a study recently released from the Institute for Responsible Technology related to GMO foods and states, “GMO foods are linked to leaky gut syndrome and may also trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including celiac disease. Of the nine GMO food crops grown for human consumption containing high levels of Bt toxin, corn and corn oil are most widely consumed in the US and Mexico. The Bt toxin was designed to puncture holes in insects’ digestive tracts, and studies have demonstrated this in human cells as well. Bt toxin may be related to leaky guy syndrome, and as a whole, GM (sic) foods may be contributing to the rise of gluten sensitivity.” 
There is a great deal we do not know about what Wyatt and others refer to as “leaky gut syndrome,” yet the “experts” at Consumer Reports are attempting to downplay the benefits of going gluten-free. Why is that? Is someone paying them to write articles that attempt to undercut what the medical field is learning about how harmful gluten can be to your health?
Let’s not forget that gluten proteins themselves were changed in the lab in the mid-to-late 1960s with the creation of GMO “dwarf wheat.” This wheat quickly became (and remains) a staple used in the food industry for most of the food that consumers eat today. The problem is that while lab techs created a wheat that grew quickly and was resistant to heat, drought, and pesticides, the gluten protein was dramatically changed into something our bodies have a very difficult time digesting. We’ve been eating it for 30, 40, or 50 years! Is there any question as to why people are experiencing so many health-related illnesses and early death?
This article in Consumer Reports is written to mask the ill effects of gluten proteins in the human body. The gluten proteins we eat today are not what our grandparents ate.
Instead of owning up to the problem, Big Food is doing what they can to hide the problem, in spite of the fact that bad health is too often the result of eating processed foods made available to us from the major food companies today.
Do your own research! Find out what is and what is not healthy. Take care of your body because it’s the only one you have!
 Leaky Gut Syndrome: A Modern Epidemic with an Ancient Solution? , Townsend Letter, June 2014