https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout

or

https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>
>or
>
>https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y

That confirms that there's nothing wrong with gluten unless you're
allergic or oversensitive to it. Of course whole boatloads of people
fool themselves into thinking that they are. And there's a whole
industry that helps them think that and then receives them with open
arms.

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >
> >https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
> >
> >or
> >
> >https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>
> That confirms that there's nothing wrong with gluten unless you're
> allergic or oversensitive to it. Of course whole boatloads of people
> fool themselves into thinking that they are. And there's a whole
> industry that helps them think that and then receives them with open
> arms.

Yes, indeed. There's nothing wrong with gluten unless, of course, there is something wrong with gluten. The important part of that MS clickbait "article" is that non-celiac gluten sensitivity might only affect .5% of the population and is not much of a problem - unless it affects 50% of the population in which case, it's a major public health issue. It's an article that hedges its bets and is all things to all people. How cool is that? Very.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 02:43:23 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>> >
>> >or
>> >
>> >https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>
>> That confirms that there's nothing wrong with gluten unless you're
>> allergic or oversensitive to it. Of course whole boatloads of people
>> fool themselves into thinking that they are. And there's a whole
>> industry that helps them think that and then receives them with open
>> arms.
>
>Yes, indeed. There's nothing wrong with gluten unless, of course, there is something wrong with gluten. The important part of that MS clickbait "article" is that non-celiac gluten sensitivity might only affect .5% of the population and is not much of a problem - unless it affects 50% of the population in which case, it's a major public health issue. It's an article that hedges its bets and is all things to all people. How cool is that? Very.

It's hard to say how many people have a gluten sensitivity if half the
population of any country jump on any bandwagon that drives past. Same
with MSG.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>
>or
>
>https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y


I had written out a long explanation of why half of that article was
good and why the other half was BS but I accidentally closed it before
I sent it. Just know that half of that story is just plain BS.
Especially about the part about a gluten free diet being harmful...

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>
>> or
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>
>I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>Celiac disease)

Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
incorrect.
>
>"Most people don’t actually need to avoid gluten
>As popular as the gluten-free diet has become, it actually may not
>be necessary for most people, at least according to a 2015 study
>published in the journal Digestion, which found that 86% of those
>who thought they had gluten sensitivity could in fact tolerate it,
>and didn’t notice any changes with a gluten-free diet."

The gluten free diet has been around for over 5 years I think we are
past the "fad stage"
>
>I think even the 14% is overstated - a fluke of the study. 14%
>psyschosomatically willed their symptoms. Or outright lied about
>them.
>
>-sw

It is real real hard to lie when you have and skin problems all of
your life then you go gluten free and it all goes away. Every single
medication, soap, cream, or lotion that you have used has done nothing
at all and then you go gluten free and it just goes away?? Then to top
it all of you eat something that has been cross contaminated with
gluten and all your skin problems reappear for a few days...

People that have no earthly idea what they are even talking about
really should not talk, ever.

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>
>>I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>>except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>>Celiac disease)
>
>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>incorrect.

Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
bread yet.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>>
>>> I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>>> except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>>> Celiac disease)
>>
>> Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> incorrect.
>
> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
> bread yet.
>

You probably haven't read the ingredient list yet.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
> wrote:
>
> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
> >incorrect.
>
> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
> bread yet.
>
Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
be eaten. My, my, my.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:

> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
> be eaten. My, my, my.

Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

If people who have trouble digesting milk, keep drinking it, they have
bigger problems than just lactose intolerance.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:08:29 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
> >> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
> >> be eaten. My, my, my.
> >
> >Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.
>
> If people who have trouble digesting milk, keep drinking it, they have
> bigger problems than just lactose intolerance.

They don't. Why the heck would you think that they keep drinking milk if they have problems with it? That's goofy as hell.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
> > Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
> > least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
> > be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>
Really, most?????
>
> Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway.
>
That deserves another my, my, my. But anything over indulged in is not really
great for a person. Yes, lots of people over indulge in bread and pastas.
>
My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.
>
That I think we can agree on.

On 2019-09-29 4:26 p.m., wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT
> supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>

It is quite a bit longer than that. Humans began cultivating wheat about
10,000 years ago. Humans who cultivated and ate wheat also made a lot
of other significant advances.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:08:29 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> >> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> >> be eaten. My, my, my.
>> >
>> >Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.
>>
>> If people who have trouble digesting milk, keep drinking it, they have
>> bigger problems than just lactose intolerance.
>
>They don't. Why the heck would you think that they keep drinking milk if they have problems with it? That's goofy as hell.

Good, then there's no problem. Same with wheat. If your body doesn't
like it, don't eat it. For everybody else, it's fine and healthy. More
bread, please.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:23:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2019-09-29 4:26 p.m., wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT
>> supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>>
>
>It is quite a bit longer than that. Humans began cultivating wheat about
>10,000 years ago. Humans who cultivated and ate wheat also made a lot
>of other significant advances.

So it's brain food!

On 2019-09-29 4:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10,
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's
>> NOT supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of
> this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just
> because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make
> it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff.
> Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the
> modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

Well maybe most of the planet doesn't consume all that much milk. There
seems to be something of a racial factor to lactose intolerance.
Europeans tend to have a relatively low rate of lactose intolerance,
about 18-26%. Only about 4% of Swedes are lactose intolerant. Africans
and Asian have rates of 75-95%.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 4:23:36 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> > wrote:
>
> >> If people who have trouble digesting milk, keep drinking it, they have
> >> bigger problems than just lactose intolerance.
> >
> >They don't. Why the heck would you think that they keep drinking milk if they have problems with it? That's goofy as hell.
>
> Good, then there's no problem. Same with wheat. If your body doesn't
> like it, don't eat it. For everybody else, it's fine and healthy. More
> bread, please.
>
APPLAUSE!!!

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Well maybe most of the planet doesn't consume all that much milk. There
> seems to be something of a racial factor to lactose intolerance.
> Europeans tend to have a relatively low rate of lactose intolerance,
> about 18-26%. Only about 4% of Swedes are lactose intolerant. Africans
> and Asian have rates of 75-95%.

I can build up a tolerance to milk by establishing a colony of lactose loving bacteria in my gut and maintaining the gut-bugs by drinking milk daily but there's not much point in doing that. Most of Asia is not into milk but I can drink/eat fermented milk products just fine. I love Calpis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMBSORhBP7M

MARXISM TODAY, FEBRUARY, 1979 47
workers needed an education not just "to effectively
master technology but to actively participate in
social life, to be politically mature, to consciously
assimilate the values of spiritual life."' It remains
unclear which side triumphed as changes in Soviet
education policy during the last few years suggest
that both of these views have had some influence
on those who actually take the decisions.
The importance of "liberalisation"
What does this discussion show? It certainly
seems to me to indicate the importance in general
terms of Bahro's references to "surplus consciousness", but it also highlights the issue he evades: the
mechanism whereby important social changes can
come about and the importance of "liberalisation"
in the socialist countries.
These examples suggest that the very gradual
and cautious relaxation of controls on intellectual
freedoms are not just a concession to the demands
of the intelligentsia. A completely paranoid politbureaucracy would never have allowed the education
of so many intellectuals anyway. Rather, liberalisation reflects the recognition by party leaders of their
own inability to find solutions to all their society's
problems without a process of discussion and consultation. They therefore have an obvious incentive
to take seriously suggestions that are made.
There is also another side to this, illustrated
both by the fate of the Akchi farm experiment and
by the changes in education policy. Irrespective of
where ideas originate, the decisions are ultimately
taken at the very highest level, often without any
public explanation, let alone debate between
the leadership and members of the public. This
must encourage feelings of helplessness and alienation among those in subordinate positions in the
hierarchy.
This was the essential background to the changes
in Czechoslovakia in 1968.8
Failures were very
noticeable. Hopes of rapid economic growth were
dashed when, in 1963, national output actually
decreased despite a very high rate of investment.
The regime suffered other disappointments and
embarrassments too and could hardly fail to notice
the widespread disillusionment, especially among
young people. The party leadership therefore felt
obliged to cautiously welcome discussion of possible
reforms.
Immediately prior to the democratisation process
Czechoslovak politics presented a paradox to many
Western observers. To some it seemed that changes
had been small since the time of Stalin: above all
there was still one man occupying the posts of
7
The debate is summarised in Yanovitch's book.
8
See my articles in Comment 24/6/78 and Socialist
Europe, No. 4.
President and party First Secretary, and he exercised
considerable autocratic power. To others it seemed
that Czechoslovakia was among the most liberal of
the East European states. This contradiction was a
real one. Novotny had felt obliged to allow
liberalisation, but wanted to retain the monopoly of
important decision-making at the top.
Cultural Revolution
As Bahro's concept of alienation misses so much
of the concrete changes taking place in Eastern
Europe today, it is not surprising that it also
provides an inadequate basis for a programme for a
communist future.
This takes up a large part of his book and he has
made it clear that he regards his proposal of a
concrete alternative as his most important contribution. The basic aim is a "cultural revolution" which
is to be of equivalent significance "to that other
transition which introduced humanity into class
society, by way of patriarchy, the vertical division of
labour and the state", (p. 257.)
He provides a list of changes that will constitute
this "cultural revolution": the most important is a
redivision of labour such that everyone will take an
equal share of activities at the various functional
levels. Although he makes it clear that this can only
be achieved by a gradual process rather than a
single revolutionary act, he is annoyingly dismissive
of what could be the first and most practicable
steps towards it. As an example, the important
attempt to introduce systematic participation by
employees in management through workers' councils
in Czechoslovakia in 1968 is considered only long
enough to condemn it for not going far enough.
The aim, apparently, was not "genuine workers'
councils, but rather a regime of directors merely
with councils attached to them." (p. 98.)
It seems that, despite his useful insights into
contemporary problems of industrial management,
he is either ignorant of or uninterested in recent
discussions of possible immediate changes.
Universal higher education
He links the distant all-or-nothing aim of complete
redivision of labour with the equally ambitious and
distant objective of a unitary education up to the
age of 23. This, he believes, is a precondition for
participation in the highest functional levels of society.
At one stage in the book the argument is sober
and fairly persuasive as he argues that there could
be enormous gains in inventiveness and productivity
if all employees were better educated, understood
more about the technology they were using and were
periodically involved in management. Such an
argument could certainly justify experimenting with
new management forms, but later in the book
Bahro adopts a different approach.
48 MARXISM TODAY, FEBRUARY, 1979
He implicitly accepts that such an enormous
expansion in education would impose an immense
burden on the economy, but, already indicating a
lack of interest in raising living standards, suggests
that the rapidity of growth in the GDR would
make it possible within the lifetime of a generation.
He thereby avoids unambiguously proposing that
this should be done at once and it remains
unclear how far he would differ in his immediate
proposals from the present policy in socialist
countries which clearly has involved the provision
of all levels of education. Again, by concentrating
entirely on a very distant objective he has lost sight
of the practical politics and realities of the present.
Opposition to growth
Even less convincing is his insistence on counterposing his "cultural revolution" to the objective
of economic growth. This follows partly from an
acceptance of an extreme environmentalist position
suggesting that the only way to save the world from
ecological disaster is a dramatic reduction in growth
rates in the most advanced countries. It is also
partly an over-reaction to a belief that the socialist
countries can never achieve the aim of overtaking
the advanced capitalist countries.
There is some justification for his pessimism in
the persistence of a "technological gap". Even in
those fields in which Soviet industry is strongest,
such as steel, there may have been no significant
reduction in the lag (compared with the more
advanced capitalist countries) in applying the most
modern production methods over the last twenty
years.9
That, however, is hardly an argument for
abandoning the objective of economic growth. It
would seem to me to indicate instead the importance
of discussions of economic reforms that could
improve industrial performance. Bahro is uninterested
in this, preferring to emphasise only the total
redivision of labour.
He has, however, a still more important argument
for rejecting the aim of growth. It follows from his
belief that the possession of goods and the
enjoyment of entertainment are just "compensatory
interests" necessitated by the unfulfilling nature of
alienated labour. He therefore argues that the fiveday forty-hour week should be kept (p. 421).
Moreover, he expresses disinterest in the potentialities of present advances in technology believing
that new methods of production should be sought
only to eliminate the most unpleasant and stultifying
unskilled work.
It is hard to believe that the asceticism of this
argument will gain much support in Eastern
Europe today where living standards are still far
9
R. Amman, J. M. Cooper, R. W. Davies: The
Technological Level of Soviet Industry, London 1977.
below those of the most advanced capitalist
countries, but it is an extremely important issue for
Bahro: once it is rejected, the rest of his vision of a
communist society looks very unconvincing. For it
is only in the context of a non-growing economy
that his ideas on the economics and politics of
communism make any sense at all. An example is his
proposal for the establishment of quasi-autonomous
"communes" which are to combine the activities of
work, education and general living within one
unit. This idea is compatible with a primitive
economy and possibly also with an unchanging one,
but it could not provide an adequate organisational
framework for regulating and coordinating the present advance in technology.. As an example,
developments with such wide-ranging implications
and effects as nuclear power can hardly be decided
on or organised below the national level.
A still more important issue that he evades in his
discussion of communism is that of the exercise of
political power. This omission is impermissible as,
quite obviously, it was the central one in
Czechoslovakia in 1968. The source of his error is
illustrated in his comments on suggestions for a
multi-party system which he dismisses as an irrelevance for present day socialist societies because "a
plurality of parties rests on a class structure
consisting of clearly different and even contrary
social elements" (p. 350). In other words, in his view
the political superstructure is no more than a reflection of the economic base.
He even argues that once the hierarchical division
of labour has been overcome, the exact method
whereby decisions are taken becomes irrelevant. He
contents himself with the vaguest and least
specific of generalisations such as "the power of
organised public opinion which in case of need can
be reinforced by secret ballot" (p. 452), or,
"whenever society is faced with a choice" the issue
can be decided by "a general vote" (p. 367).
It seems that after arguing that Stalin's rise was
broadly a consequence of economic necessity, he has
completely overlooked the dangers of an abuse of
power which is not subject to clearly defined
mechanisms of control.
The next step
It is hardly surprising that Bahro's inadequate
appraisal of the problem of political power in
general should lead to confused proposals for what
should be done next. Having written off the
existing power structure he concludes that the time
has come to organise outside it, starting with a
"theoretical-ideological and propaganda circle"
(p. 303) based on those with faith in the possibility
of an alternative and gradually expanding to
become a mass movement. Experience suggests that
this is no easy task. Those who take a stand
MARXISM TODAY, FEBRUARY, 1979 49
against the regime condemn themselves not only to
personal discomfort, which Bahro recognises and is
prepared to accept, but can also be so effectively
silenced as to appear powerless. Although there are
elements of a Marxist opposition in a number of
East European countries, they are tolerated only to
the extent that the regime is not completely monolithic and does respond to some pressures. Hungary
is the obvious example: opposition may be the best
developed, but it also has the best chance of
gaining some influence and therefore the least
reason to indulge in rash acts of open defiance.
It therefore seems likely that the next changes in
Eastern Europe will centre on issues like economic
reform, the distribution of incomes, egalitarianism
in education policy and steps towards the democra
tisation of management structures: these are all the
subject of present controversies and are discussed in
specialised works in Eastern Europe today. Bahro,
however, is implicitly presenting a very different
perspective. He believes that the existing power
structure will prove helpless once confronted with
the determination "of even a small group of
people" (p. 345). He provides no serious evidence
to support this assertion which simply underlines
yet again his naivety and ignorance about the
political realities. That, of course, is an issue which
is assumed away in his highly general and abstract
theoretical framework.
Conclusion
My general feeling after reading Bahro's book is
one of disappointment. Despite his own ambition,
and some ecstatic reviews, it is in no sense a
masterpiece. The fault is in the theoretical framework he has adopted which serves to obscure
rather than to elucidate the changes that are
possible in Eastern Europe over the next few
decades.
This is not to suggest that he does not make
many perceptive points when basing himself on his
own personal knowledge but, taken as a whole, his
work falls far short of providing a realistic and
attractive vision for the future. Neither does it show
the link between the ambitious objective of a
communist society and the realities of how
political changes today can take place.
These critical remarks are in no way intended as a
justification for those who have tried to silence
Bahro. Neither are they intended to suggest that
either his book, or his defiant gesture in writing it,
are politically unimportant. He has at least raised in
a thought-provoking and forceful way the question
of the long-term objectives of those Marxists
dissatisfied with existing socialist societies. This is
undoubtedly an important and significant contribution, but unfortunately he has


On Sunday, 29 September 2019 16:08:29 UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
> >> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
> >> be eaten. My, my, my.
> >
> >Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff. Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much of the stuff. Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.
>
> If people who have trouble digesting milk, keep drinking it, they have
> bigger problems than just lactose intolerance.

On 2019-09-29 6:08 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> Well maybe most of the planet doesn't consume all that much milk.
>> There seems to be something of a racial factor to lactose
>> intolerance. Europeans tend to have a relatively low rate of
>> lactose intolerance, about 18-26%. Only about 4% of Swedes are
>> lactose intolerant. Africans and Asian have rates of 75-95%.
>
> I can build up a tolerance to milk by establishing a colony of
> lactose loving bacteria in my gut and maintaining the gut-bugs by
> drinking milk daily but there's not much point in doing that. Most of
> Asia is not into milk but I can drink/eat fermented milk products
> just fine. I love Calpis.
>

I can handle lactose free milk and small amounts of yogurt. Kefir is
like a tonic. Maybe northern Europeans all have those gut bugs in their
system. Maybe it is naturally produced enzymes. The long and short of
is that northern Europeans can tolerate lactose better than most others.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:08:00 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:41:02 -0500, Sqwertz >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:53:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...id=mailsignout
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/y3anm46y
>>>
>>>I'm asserting that even "Gluten Sensitivity" doesn't really exist
>>>except in the same proportion of actual Celiacs (without actual
>>>Celiac disease)
>>
>>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>incorrect.
>
>Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>bread yet.

If you look at how plants spread their seeds to propagate the species
you may understand. Fruits place the seeds inside the fruit so they
will be eaten and later pooped out at a different place and that is
how the plant reproduces. Plants like wheat barley and rye simply drop
their seeds directly down and have no outer protective coating. What
they do have it proteins inside them that deter things from eating
them so that the seeds will fall or be carried a short distance with
the wind and then take root that way. Some of these proteins,
for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
and/or other proteins in foods.

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>be eaten. My, my, my.


Read more, talk less

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:27:01 -0500,
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:08:00 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>bread yet.
>
>If you look at how plants spread their seeds to propagate the species
>you may understand. Fruits place the seeds inside the fruit so they
>will be eaten and later pooped out at a different place and that is
>how the plant reproduces. Plants like wheat barley and rye simply drop
>their seeds directly down and have no outer protective coating. What
>they do have it proteins inside them that deter things from eating
>them so that the seeds will fall or be carried a short distance with
>the wind and then take root that way. Some of these proteins,
> for instance gluten, are bad for the gut and cause problems. Since
>wheat has been around so long and it is so easy to grow and distribute
>humans have been able to evolve to where the gluten is tolerated. But
>every human has the chance to have problems with gluten or at least
>have children or grandchildren that will have a problem with gluten
>and/or other proteins in foods.

Well, if I ever develop a problem with gluten, i'll start avoiding it.
But until then, I love bread.

On 2019-09-29 4:27 p.m., wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>>> you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>>> supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>
> Read more,

But not books by quacks!

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:

>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>incorrect.

Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>> bread yet.
>>
>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>be eaten. My, my, my.

Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass seed,
and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of agriculture
made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to be eaten"
not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"

A lot of common foodstuffs are not supposed to be eaten. That's not to
say you can't eat them without a problem manifesting itself.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:18:51 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> > least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> > be eaten. My, my, my.
>>
>> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>>
>Really, most?????

The exact number of adults with lactose intolerance is unknown. One
estimate puts the average at 65% of the global population. Rates of
lactose intolerance vary between regions, from less than 10% in
Northern Europe to as high as 95% in parts of Asia and Africa. Onset
is typically in late childhood or early adulthood.
Lactose intolerance - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Lactose_intolerance

On 2019-09-29 7:09 p.m., Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT),
> " > wrote:

>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's
>> NOT supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>
> Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass
> seed, and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of
> agriculture made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to
> be eaten" not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"

It is a lot more than 2000 years. It was part of the human diet before
agriculture. Agriculture was the domestication of wild plant/seed
they were already eating.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:36:44 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2019-09-29 4:27 p.m., wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>>>> you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>>>> supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>>> bread yet.
>>>>
>>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>>
>>
>> Read more,
>
>But not books by quacks!

They're not all quacks, Graham. Do some research... look at some
scientific literature. Do you know how to do that? For somebody so
enamored by scientific rigor, you regularly display the exact opposite
in your rigid * beliefs*.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:09:53 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>> >you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>> >supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>> >incorrect.
>>>
>>> Wheat's not supposed to be eaten? I've never had a bad reaction to
>>> bread yet.
>>>
>>Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>>least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>>be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass seed,
>and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of agriculture
>made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to be eaten"
>not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"
>
>A lot of common foodstuffs are not supposed to be eaten. That's not to
>say you can't eat them without a problem manifesting itself.

More nonsense. Can people with real or imagined sensitivities stop
acting as if everybody else has their problems as well?

Just read the ingredient list

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:05:36 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:58:11 -0500,
wrote:
>
>>Well considering that I do have a gluten sensitivity then I would say
>>you are incorrect. Also the fact that Wheat is NOT a plant that is
>>supposed to be eaten then I would also say that your dissertation is
>>incorrect.
>
>Finally, somebody else on this group understands this about wheat

Good, the kooks have found each other Happy kooking!

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 19:19:33 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2019-09-29 7:09 p.m., Je?us wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT),
>> " > wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form
>>> for at least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's
>>> NOT supposed to be eaten. My, my, my.
>>
>> Yes, only 2000 years. Glad you acknowledged that. Wheat is grass
>> seed, and was never a part of the human diet until the advent of
>> agriculture made it a viable source of food. And he said "supposed to
>> be eaten" not your embellished "NOT supposed to be eaten"
>
>It is a lot more than 2000 years. It was part of the human diet before
> agriculture. .

Yes, sorry. You're correct. I should have picked up on that.

>Agriculture was the domestication of wild plant/seed
>they were already eating

Yes, but in relatively minute quantities due to seasonality, low
natural yields, difficulty of harvesting, low starch levels... and of
course, it was unrefined. There's a huge difference.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 5:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Read more, talk less
>
Yes, I heartily concur, you should read more, a LOT more and a LOT less talk.

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 6:17:47 PM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:18:51 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> >>
> >> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
> >>
> >Really, most?????
>
> The exact number of adults with lactose intolerance is unknown. One
> estimate puts the average at 65% of the global population. Rates of
> lactose intolerance vary between regions, from less than 10% in
> Northern Europe to as high as 95% in parts of Asia and Africa. Onset
> is typically in late childhood or early adulthood.
> Lactose intolerance - Wikipedia
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org ۼ wiki ۼ Lactose_intolerance
>
But he makes broad and sweeping statements. Most of this planets population
have problems digesting the stuff. And as you stated 'estimate.'

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:55:22 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 6:17:47 PM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:18:51 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>> >>
>> >Really, most?????
>>
>> The exact number of adults with lactose intolerance is unknown. One
>> estimate puts the average at 65% of the global population. Rates of
>> lactose intolerance vary between regions, from less than 10% in
>> Northern Europe to as high as 95% in parts of Asia and Africa. Onset
>> is typically in late childhood or early adulthood.
>> Lactose intolerance - Wikipedia
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Lactose_intolerance
>>
>But he makes broad and sweeping statements.

For sure.

> Most of this planets population
>have problems digesting the stuff. And as you stated 'estimate.'

Yep. It's not an easy thing to quantify, due to the ubiquitous nature
of wheat in food, and that some people are not even aware it's even a
problem for them. I'm an example of the latter. I had to figure out
for myself that I have an wheat intolerance - no thanks to doctors
over the course of 20 years that had no idea what the problem was.
Once I figured it out, I had blood tests that confirmed I have a wheat
intolerance.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who would have thought that wheat has been used in some form for at
>> least 2000 years but our self diagnosed 'expert' says it's NOT supposed to
>> be eaten. My, my, my.
>
>Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>Just because people have been consuming wheat for a long time don't make it healthy. My guess is that people eat way too much
>of the stuff.

Exactly. Before the advent of agriculture and later mechanization,
wheat wasn't really a practical food source due to the difficulty of
collecting and refining it. Now, it's so easy to do that, which also
makes it extremely cheap. It's compounded by millennia of breeding to
increase the starch.

> Wheat is not a very natural product anyway. My guess is that the modern hybrid stuff is different from the wheat of 2000 years ago.

It's nothing like the same as the original grass species under the
genus Triticum. So, yes.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:42:39 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:


>APPLAUSE!!!


A more sensible comment would be to enjoy it in moderation.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:11:31 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:42:39 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>
>
>>APPLAUSE!!!
>
>
>A more sensible comment would be to enjoy it in moderation.

Nah, I eat bread every day and often more than once a day. No
moderation required.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:04:46 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:55:22 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 6:17:47 PM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:18:51 -0700 (PDT), "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Cow's milk has been popular for thousands of years too but most of this planet's population have problems digesting the stuff.
>>> >>
>>> >Really, most?????
>>>
>>> The exact number of adults with lactose intolerance is unknown. One
>>> estimate puts the average at 65% of the global population. Rates of
>>> lactose intolerance vary between regions, from less than 10% in
>>> Northern Europe to as high as 95% in parts of Asia and Africa. Onset
>>> is typically in late childhood or early adulthood.
>>> Lactose intolerance - Wikipedia
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org ۼ wiki ۼ Lactose_intolerance
>>>
>>But he makes broad and sweeping statements.
>
>For sure.
>
>> Most of this planets population
>>have problems digesting the stuff. And as you stated 'estimate.'
>
>Yep. It's not an easy thing to quantify, due to the ubiquitous nature
>of wheat in food, and that some people are not even aware it's even a
>problem for them. I'm an example of the latter. I had to figure out
>for myself that I have an wheat intolerance - no thanks to doctors
>over the course of 20 years that had no idea what the problem was.
>Once I figured it out, I had blood tests that confirmed I have a wheat
>intolerance.

There you go. If you have a wheat tolerance, of course you have to be
careful with wheat. But that doesn't apply to people who don't have
the intolerance. Limit your preaching to your fellow intolerants.