HN user

headstorm

52 karma
Posts0
Comments37
View on HN
No posts found.

I think that celiac disease diagnosis is far more limiting than being vegetarian for social events, based on my experience.

25 years ago, a friend quickly learned how to answer an online MBTI so that he could consistently score neutral on all four axes. I think that was the most entertaining approach that I've seen.

I was completely ready for that book to change my life after reading so many glowing testimonials. It did nothing, though I felt worse after reading it a few times, because it was supposed to be so transformative.

I guess the mind-body prescription isn't prescribed for celiac disease or my other health issues, because finding out that I had those conditions was the key, not Dr. Sarno's advice.

For me, having to have a one on one discussion with the chef (not my comfort zone) about whether they can make celiac-safe food isn't the same thing as almost every restaurant having gluten-free items on the menu. BTW, plenty of restaurants seem to list fried foods that are gluten-free but also mention that they share the fryer with items containing gluten. That's not legalese, that's certain contamination.

Most restaurants take the approach that Applebee's takes, which is to disclaim responsibility. Why should someone with celiac disease risk it when milligrams over the course of a day can ruin one's life for potentially weeks?

"Please be aware that during normal kitchen operations involving shared cooking and preparation areas, including common fryer oil, the possibility exists for food items to come in contact with other food products. Due to these circumstances, we are unable to guarantee that any menu item can be completely free of allergens." https://www.applebees.com/Allergen-Info

Where is this at, if you care to share? And do you know if your menu states anything about this? Most restaurants I look into (and won't eat at as a result) say stuff like:

"Gluten Free – Did you know that Chef Heather knows each and every ingredient that goes into her dishes? If you require a gluten free dish, please tell your server, or ask the Chef about it. Gluten Free is Not available for every dish." http://plumtreebistro.net/bistro-menu/

But when I email the restaurant, such as Plum Bistro, I get replies such as, "Hi there we are not a gluten free restaurant. We simply offer gluten-free options it's not advisable to dine with us if you have celiac disease because cross-contamination may occur."

Or another restaurant, after enquiring about their gluten-free options: "Thanks for your inquiry. We don't have specific cross contamination protocols."

I find these, or restaurants that have fine print about shared facilities and not assuming risk of cross-contamination, to be the norm in Seattle.

Why do you think it's a good thing for people with celiac disease that pretty much every restaurant has gluten free options on their menu?

Most restaurants advertising gluten-free items don't have dedicated cookware, utensils, cutting surfaces, grill areas, etc., which greatly raises the risk of cross-contamination.

And a significant percentage of gluten-free products in supermarkets are made in shared facilities that process wheat - why count that as helpful for celiac sufferers?

EDIT: I'd seriously love to be able to psychologically go into the average restaurant or fast food place and buy their gluten-free food without getting sick, so I welcome evidence as to why I'm wrong.

The summer solstice marks the beginning of summer astronomically just as the winter solstice marks the beginning of astronomical winter.

Midsummer is celebrated on the longest day in some cultures, on the solstice in others, but does not denote the middle of astronomical summer.

Meteorologic summer and winter currently begin weeks before the solstice. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/meteorological-versus-astrono... has a discussion on the difference.

I might be mistaken but I read the parent as saying that each browser on his windows pc is faster than safari on his mbp.

I fail to see why I should believe that it is only an anesthetic (never anasthetic, as you consistenly keep writing) and not a tranquilizer as well when I can find thousands of documents on .gov and .edu sites supporting its use as a tranquilizer. Surely you can come up with veterinary medicine documents that explain why it's not usable as a tranquilizer rather than making unsupported claims - since it's mentioned as a tranquilizer always in veterinary and not human contexts.

Repeating yourself doesn't answer my question as to what makes the statement wrong. The more interesting question to me is why there are so many sources, including many government documents, referring to it as a veterinary tranquilizer going back almost 50 years if it does not have that effect.

The term CMS has been used to mean configuration management system for longer than it has been used to mean content management system. One can find articles from 1990 using it in the former context, while the latter appears to have been used since the late 1990s.