Gyrobob wrote on 03/04/12 at 06:35:36:

You have shown that some effects flip on and off like a switch, for example when the flour soup thickener inadvertently gave you a blind test and you had a headache in less than an hour.

I think other effects (like roughness in my joints) are less dramatic, and more gradual and proportionate to the amount of WGC consumed. If it was an absolute on/off thing, I would not have seen any improvement, because I still eat corn and rice, and am not a teetotaler on wheat.

The advice to give it a try "for a month or two" suggests that it takes time for the concentration of WGC to bleed down to where the experimenter will notice the effects.  The lack of an exact prescribed time to try it suggests that the 'detox' period is different for different people, or at least that symptoms persist longer in others.

Has any one on that facebook page gone 1.5 months and gotten near the end of their trial period, about to give up, then all the sudden BOING! WHOA!! X symptom went away!  I'd look into it myself but I don't do Facebook.

Take it easy, Gyrobob...

I'm sure you know that copper will poison the blood system.

If you wear a copper bracelet, it will stain your skin green.

Yet... how many people (teenage girls, mostly) wear copper bracelets?

And.. what about magnetic bracelets ? Tattoos ?

There's more to "neurodegenerative disease" than just eating bread or drinking beer...

One of my Cherokee relatives just told me what the Native-American term is for vegetarian,...

Lousy Hunter

bill67 wrote on 03/09/12 at 10:30:21:


My brother wore one of those too. He put it on his wrist on Monday, and died on Thursday.  His widow took hers off right away.

What really cracks me up (meaning, makes me smile) is that you guys can make a whopper of a case for the survival of the Human Species and turn it into a Vaudeville show...



Love you guys !

Now, Gyrobob, pancakes and coffee ? C'mon, it's on me (if you can make it this side of the Ocean...)

Here's yet another link between brain problems and wheat.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201108/wheat-and-...

It's not absolute proof, just another nail in the coffin,... a link, so to speak.

I wonder who eats more wheat, dems or repubs?

mpescatori wrote on 03/12/12 at 03:35:36:


For myself, I'm just trying to do what I can to slow down the rate at which entropy does its thing to me.  When you're young, you're indestructible.  Now in middle-age I'm trying to lessen how much old age could potentially suck.  If I am ever financially able to retire, I would like to enjoy it and if I'm not financially able to retire, I'd like to be fit to work.  I think the human race has proliferated quite well in the last 20,000 years (overall evolution for us is probably more like 2 million years but I'm sticking to homo sapiens portion).  I know that some might even say like a cancer and that mother earth is trying to rid herself of us.  I prefer not to pass moral judgments on the survival instincts of a species and I'm not sure I can quite swallow the macro-consciousness of planet but all that aside, I think we've adopted a lot of changes to both our dietary and activity habits over the past 20 millennia.  Many of those changes have enabled us to survive in far greater population densities than could otherwise be supported (i.e. agriculture).  However, I also think that some of these changes have introduced varying degrees of toxicity to us for which evolution has left us ill-prepared.  If we let natural selection continue and did not change things at a rapid pace, evolution would just do its thing and the survivors would be better equipped... but we don't let natural selection work (we treat the symptoms with drugs and such and engender even more side-effects often ignoring root causes) and we change what goes into our bodies at a quick clip.  Some of these changes are things most of us aren't even aware of, like just how much wheat has been modified by man in just the past half century.  The flour in most of our foods is not what it was in WWII and is extremely different from what our ancestors have survived on for thousands of years.  That in itself gives me pause.  The question is whether we made it better or worse for us.  The answer seems to be that we made it easier to grow more product and make it better tasting and easier to cook with but worse for our health.  I think we're good at that.  I can do much about the air I breathe but I can have a little more influence elsewhere.  Thus, I read and try to decide what I believe and how to change.  I haven't finished this book yet and won't pass judgment on it yet.  So far though, some of the author's assertions make sense to me for humanity overall while others likely effect only a very small subset.

I'm actually interested in trying flour and products made from Einkorn wheat (the original wheat), though I actually eat very few processed grain products anymore anyway.  It sounds interesting and who doesn't like pancakes.  And it'd take a lot to get me to give up my coffee.

bill67 wrote on 03/16/12 at 15:32:35:

Absolutely, we should be examining other food sources too. I don't think anyone said wheat was the only thing that has changed.  I would venture to posit that wheat is one of the food sources that has changed the most (and in the shortest time-span) as well as being one of those that has been purposefully modified at a genetic level.  Also, it constitutes an inordinately large portion of humanity's current dietary intake.  I think that may be why this author focuses on it but I don't know that for sure.  He might have been locked in a grain silo for days as a kid and never got over it;  I just can't say.