Stevia is a much healthier alternative than sugar. I had no problems getting pregnant on it. It's the only sweetener I use and I grow it myself too. Even if they think they'll prevent pregnancies with it, i'd rather see them feed the population stevia than promote abortions, assisted suicide, genocide, false flags and never ending wars... the usual depop stuff.
Monk fruit extract. It even browns like real sugar when cooking. I would still suggest women who want to get pregnant to avoid stevia. Better safe than childless.
And really...how much do you use??? A few drops in coffee or sweet tea?? I used coconut sugar for baking so stevia is probably not that big of an issue...I really wonder how much you would need to take to promote sterility....
Stevia isn't artificial, it's a plant, i grow it in my garden, i make my own extract. Maybe you are confusing it with splenda? Sugar promotes disease in the body, raw or not, it's awful for you.
What type of climate are you in? I thought that you needed consistent warm weather to grow stevia. I've got the seeds but held off because of that requirement.
I would describe my climate as slightly warmer than the deepest pits of hell. But you're asking me this at the end of august, after I've spend the last two months doing everything I can to keep all my animals alive. I did lose one chicken to the demonic heat so far. Hopefully the rest will survive. Also growing from seed is really hard. The farmers normally propagate as cuttings. The seeds barely germinate. It's hard. But my roots survive winter so the original plants keep coming back bigger each year which is nice. If you are in a cold climate maybe get a small grow tent and keep it bright at warm indoors?
I laughed at your description of the climate where you live! I'm sorry that you lost an animal to the heat. I will try growing it inside and see what happens. I've never been fond of stevia but maybe growing it myself will result in a different flavor. Praying that you get some relief from the heat.
Most liquid stevia drops on the shelf are gross imo, the flavor can change depending on how you extract it, or if you use fresh or dry leaves to do it, how long you cook off the alcohol, all that stuff. Really the best tasting thing is the leaf itself. Put them in hot water with your tea leaves and it will naturally sweeten tea, it's so good. Really delightful to just chew on the leaf itself too. But yeah it's hot here, we just got out of a really long triple digit stretch that lasted longer than I've ever experienced before, and we actually hit 120 with the heat index last week, it was the hottest day on record for us. Crazy. Hopefully that was the peak of summer, I'm so ready for winter.
Wow! Thank you for the advice. I'm going to see if I can get some seeds to germinate and grow indoors. You've got me excited to try fresh stevia. We're supposed to have a "heat wave" next week with upper 80's and low 90's so you can always head to Western PA for a brief respite from the heat.
This is a very good video...I personally use Stevia and like it very much but I am way past worrying about fertility...to tell you the truth if I was of childbearing age and wanting childrenI I would consider not using stevia...they bring in the whole population reduction agenda and act like stevia was a major issue...it is but a small factor...but a factor nonetheless...
While it is true that there is a depopulation agenda supported by the Gates, Rockefellers and Henry Kissinger...but it involves many things...including brief shorts instead of boxer shorts for men...and nail polish, which contains the poison TPHP, for women...not to mention all the vaccines and other things done to unsuspecting people around the world.
So if you are wanting children possibly steer clear of stevia...otherwise it is a good alternative to sugar...but also do some research into other things you may be doing that causes sterility...
That study that was done in 1968 has been debunked many times. There is very little, if any concrete evidence to suggest that it does act as a contraceptive.
As a diabetic, I have researched Stevia exhaustively. It (in addition to erythritol) has never spiked my blood sugar. At least, not with the Puyre brand. There are others that used sugar derivatives as filler that are not good for diabetics. Stevia has been shown to actually decreasing insulin resistance is type 2 diabetics. It has never been shown to be carcinogenic, and it doesn't "fool" the body into thinking you have ingested sugar (like the majority of artificial sweeteners will).
A general statement that a 1968 study was 'debunked' but there is plenty of info on pubmed that processed stevia suppresses fertility in lab rats, and continues to do so for as much as 50-60 days after last ingested. You may like it for other reasons, but these are not fertility .. Have you had a baby while using stevia? That kind of thing might be evidence that it is not a depop tool.
Yes me, I got pregnant easily with my two kids and the only sweetener I ever touch is stevia. I'm also an obsessive health nut existing on an extremally strict diet for over a decade and can explain the confusion over this topic.
@PlantTrees you would need to show exactly what form of "stevia" was used in the study. These studies are set up in advance to get the intended results. So when you say "processed" know that by law any product can be labeled "stevia" as long as it contains 1% stevia. In the case of Truvia, the most recognized brand of stevia, years ago they got sued by the american diabetics association because not only did they sell their product as "stevia" they also promoted it as safe for diabetics. Problem is, they lawfully called it stevia even though it contained just 1% stevia and 99% corn sugar, making it dangerous for diabetics. So they followed the law but got in trouble with false claims. Stevia is safe for diabetics, but a product that is 99% corn sugar and only 1% is not, even though by law they can label that garbage as stevia. This is why you should never buy "processed" stevia. I grow my own, i make my own extract, that is the best way to do it. And I wouldn't be surprised if they used truvia in that experiment, and I wouldn't be surprised if they used it in excessive amounts 1000x higher than humans would ever use (an old trick they use on repeat to manipulate results because anything in excess is harmful).
Don't even get me started on how they used manipulated studies to make everyone believe comfrey is poisonous to us.
False assumption, I don't need to show anything and am not promoting nor rejecting stevia, just encouraging people to DO THEIR OWN research and decide. I AM however a proponent of Natural Law and natural plants as healing and good for us. Genesis 1:29 As we were created, plants are our best food and medicine. Once processing by man begins, you can't be sure of what you are getting, or if it is detrimental or not without doing a deep dive on specific sources and processes of a particular product. No need to attack and rant, just present your research/experience. When I was a child I learned about many healing plants. My mother smoked comfrey to counteract the bad effects of a tobacco smoking habit. btw I was a diabetic for decades, and have beat diabetes and many other serious health issues including RA.
If you counter someone's personal experience with "there have been many studies that say the opposite" then yes, you need to show us what you are talking about, because several of us came here and said this is not true for those of us actually using it.
So just say "male". Distinguish between "non/bio" male is adopting their language. This is how they shift the Overton window. Don't give them what they want.
I agree with your statement in general, but not in regard to my interaction with the other commenter. Biological meaning real male as opposed to a fake male[woman pretending to be male], or just a woman named Michael... sometimes words are just descriptors to focus on the truth. Maybe some people spend too much time being a peterbeater [?] and miss the primary point of a communication, which is that this commenter was wondering which category the other commenter was coming from with their handle SINCE the research I referred to involved FEMALES. There are biological males and there are pretenders who adopt male names, so there IS a difference and I was correct that judging from the handle he is likely a biological male, not a pretender[female] or an actual female named Michael.
Do the research and you will find that the reason the original was debunked was because the amount given to lab rats was very excessive. Anything given in very large, unrealistic doses can cause adverse effects. Saccharin was thought to be carcinogenic because it caused cancer in lab rats. It wasn't until they started doing realistic doses and studies that they changed that. Like I said, as a diabetic, I have researched ALL facets of stevia, not just the obvious sugar substitute.
That is interesting. I recently read on green med info that stevia extract or something along those lines was effective in treating lyme disease. Which also might be exacerbated by mold but that's a separate argument.
We have a very large family, and all of us—especially Mama—use stevia many times daily, mostly Trim Healthy Mama brand, as it has the cleanest flavor and is extracted by a very natural process. I am vastly more concerned about sugar in its many forms and the artificial, man-made sweeteners.
Some do, some don't, see my other comment. As a lifelong truther/analyst/researcher type I am well aware of the possibility of manipulation, substitution, outright lies even--- but that may or may not be a study-specific characteristic or an article specific characteristic and shouldn't be generalized. You said you make your own extract, which is good and I am sure must be more basic and healthy than chem stevia... idk why you are defending processed stevia in general since you yourself state [and I concur] that what the label says and what the actual substance being sold or studied may be manipulated, substituted, processed with chemicals etc etc etc.
idk why you are defending processed stevia in general since you yourself state [and I concur] that what the label says and what the actual substance being sold or studied may be manipulated
Based on this comment, you clearly did not even understand what I said, and you also seem to have no idea what stevia is.
I have an oddly specific personal experience with this.
My mother had a surprise 4th child in her 40s after a month or so off diet soda, after years of “oh I guess Im old enough to not have to worry about that”…. And that happened while using stevia. — That made for an 18 year age gap between my youngest brother and I.
I could believe stevia could be a problem for some people or it you have a weirdly large amount… But I’ve SEEN fake sweetener definitely be worse than stevia.
No. I am talking about stevia. It is from a plant related to ragweed, and ragweed is a very common allergen. Yet it's put in just about everything, like HFCS.
Stevia is a much healthier alternative than sugar. I had no problems getting pregnant on it. It's the only sweetener I use and I grow it myself too. Even if they think they'll prevent pregnancies with it, i'd rather see them feed the population stevia than promote abortions, assisted suicide, genocide, false flags and never ending wars... the usual depop stuff.
Monk fruit extract. It even browns like real sugar when cooking. I would still suggest women who want to get pregnant to avoid stevia. Better safe than childless.
And really...how much do you use??? A few drops in coffee or sweet tea?? I used coconut sugar for baking so stevia is probably not that big of an issue...I really wonder how much you would need to take to promote sterility....
It’s 300x sweeter than sugar, so ~5 drops in coffee is enough.
Sounds like this guy was paid by the sugar industry.
Look at a glycemic index at Stevia.
Same opinion as person’s comment about not negatively effecting fertility, bunch of B.S.
drops in my tea, i use a good amount. I also eat it sometimes, like chew on the leaves while i'm in the garden, so yum.
Stevia isn't artificial, it's a plant, i grow it in my garden, i make my own extract. Maybe you are confusing it with splenda? Sugar promotes disease in the body, raw or not, it's awful for you.
What type of climate are you in? I thought that you needed consistent warm weather to grow stevia. I've got the seeds but held off because of that requirement.
I would describe my climate as slightly warmer than the deepest pits of hell. But you're asking me this at the end of august, after I've spend the last two months doing everything I can to keep all my animals alive. I did lose one chicken to the demonic heat so far. Hopefully the rest will survive. Also growing from seed is really hard. The farmers normally propagate as cuttings. The seeds barely germinate. It's hard. But my roots survive winter so the original plants keep coming back bigger each year which is nice. If you are in a cold climate maybe get a small grow tent and keep it bright at warm indoors?
I laughed at your description of the climate where you live! I'm sorry that you lost an animal to the heat. I will try growing it inside and see what happens. I've never been fond of stevia but maybe growing it myself will result in a different flavor. Praying that you get some relief from the heat.
Most liquid stevia drops on the shelf are gross imo, the flavor can change depending on how you extract it, or if you use fresh or dry leaves to do it, how long you cook off the alcohol, all that stuff. Really the best tasting thing is the leaf itself. Put them in hot water with your tea leaves and it will naturally sweeten tea, it's so good. Really delightful to just chew on the leaf itself too. But yeah it's hot here, we just got out of a really long triple digit stretch that lasted longer than I've ever experienced before, and we actually hit 120 with the heat index last week, it was the hottest day on record for us. Crazy. Hopefully that was the peak of summer, I'm so ready for winter.
Wow! Thank you for the advice. I'm going to see if I can get some seeds to germinate and grow indoors. You've got me excited to try fresh stevia. We're supposed to have a "heat wave" next week with upper 80's and low 90's so you can always head to Western PA for a brief respite from the heat.
This is a very good video...I personally use Stevia and like it very much but I am way past worrying about fertility...to tell you the truth if I was of childbearing age and wanting childrenI I would consider not using stevia...they bring in the whole population reduction agenda and act like stevia was a major issue...it is but a small factor...but a factor nonetheless...
While it is true that there is a depopulation agenda supported by the Gates, Rockefellers and Henry Kissinger...but it involves many things...including brief shorts instead of boxer shorts for men...and nail polish, which contains the poison TPHP, for women...not to mention all the vaccines and other things done to unsuspecting people around the world.
So if you are wanting children possibly steer clear of stevia...otherwise it is a good alternative to sugar...but also do some research into other things you may be doing that causes sterility...
Does not cause infertility, this person is full of shite
That study that was done in 1968 has been debunked many times. There is very little, if any concrete evidence to suggest that it does act as a contraceptive.
As a diabetic, I have researched Stevia exhaustively. It (in addition to erythritol) has never spiked my blood sugar. At least, not with the Puyre brand. There are others that used sugar derivatives as filler that are not good for diabetics. Stevia has been shown to actually decreasing insulin resistance is type 2 diabetics. It has never been shown to be carcinogenic, and it doesn't "fool" the body into thinking you have ingested sugar (like the majority of artificial sweeteners will).
A general statement that a 1968 study was 'debunked' but there is plenty of info on pubmed that processed stevia suppresses fertility in lab rats, and continues to do so for as much as 50-60 days after last ingested. You may like it for other reasons, but these are not fertility .. Have you had a baby while using stevia? That kind of thing might be evidence that it is not a depop tool.
I have had no fertility issues (2 kids under 3 while using stevia)
OK, a good relevant comment. The research was on females tho, and it looks like your name may imply bio male?
Another anon was a female with the same results.
Yes me, I got pregnant easily with my two kids and the only sweetener I ever touch is stevia. I'm also an obsessive health nut existing on an extremally strict diet for over a decade and can explain the confusion over this topic.
@PlantTrees you would need to show exactly what form of "stevia" was used in the study. These studies are set up in advance to get the intended results. So when you say "processed" know that by law any product can be labeled "stevia" as long as it contains 1% stevia. In the case of Truvia, the most recognized brand of stevia, years ago they got sued by the american diabetics association because not only did they sell their product as "stevia" they also promoted it as safe for diabetics. Problem is, they lawfully called it stevia even though it contained just 1% stevia and 99% corn sugar, making it dangerous for diabetics. So they followed the law but got in trouble with false claims. Stevia is safe for diabetics, but a product that is 99% corn sugar and only 1% is not, even though by law they can label that garbage as stevia. This is why you should never buy "processed" stevia. I grow my own, i make my own extract, that is the best way to do it. And I wouldn't be surprised if they used truvia in that experiment, and I wouldn't be surprised if they used it in excessive amounts 1000x higher than humans would ever use (an old trick they use on repeat to manipulate results because anything in excess is harmful).
Don't even get me started on how they used manipulated studies to make everyone believe comfrey is poisonous to us.
False assumption, I don't need to show anything and am not promoting nor rejecting stevia, just encouraging people to DO THEIR OWN research and decide. I AM however a proponent of Natural Law and natural plants as healing and good for us. Genesis 1:29 As we were created, plants are our best food and medicine. Once processing by man begins, you can't be sure of what you are getting, or if it is detrimental or not without doing a deep dive on specific sources and processes of a particular product. No need to attack and rant, just present your research/experience. When I was a child I learned about many healing plants. My mother smoked comfrey to counteract the bad effects of a tobacco smoking habit. btw I was a diabetic for decades, and have beat diabetes and many other serious health issues including RA.
If you counter someone's personal experience with "there have been many studies that say the opposite" then yes, you need to show us what you are talking about, because several of us came here and said this is not true for those of us actually using it.
There is no such thing as a non-bio male.
not many real women would choose a name MichaelConservative ...
So just say "male". Distinguish between "non/bio" male is adopting their language. This is how they shift the Overton window. Don't give them what they want.
I agree with your statement in general, but not in regard to my interaction with the other commenter. Biological meaning real male as opposed to a fake male[woman pretending to be male], or just a woman named Michael... sometimes words are just descriptors to focus on the truth. Maybe some people spend too much time being a peterbeater [?] and miss the primary point of a communication, which is that this commenter was wondering which category the other commenter was coming from with their handle SINCE the research I referred to involved FEMALES. There are biological males and there are pretenders who adopt male names, so there IS a difference and I was correct that judging from the handle he is likely a biological male, not a pretender[female] or an actual female named Michael.
Do the research and you will find that the reason the original was debunked was because the amount given to lab rats was very excessive. Anything given in very large, unrealistic doses can cause adverse effects. Saccharin was thought to be carcinogenic because it caused cancer in lab rats. It wasn't until they started doing realistic doses and studies that they changed that. Like I said, as a diabetic, I have researched ALL facets of stevia, not just the obvious sugar substitute.
That is interesting. I recently read on green med info that stevia extract or something along those lines was effective in treating lyme disease. Which also might be exacerbated by mold but that's a separate argument.
I grew stevia in my garden. Toss a leaf into tea to sweeten. No processing, just a leaf.
I think it's supposed to go in the other end...
We have a very large family, and all of us—especially Mama—use stevia many times daily, mostly Trim Healthy Mama brand, as it has the cleanest flavor and is extracted by a very natural process. I am vastly more concerned about sugar in its many forms and the artificial, man-made sweeteners.
There are recent research articles on pubmed ncbi type sites discussing stevia as a suppressor of fertility ...
Sounds like some pro sugar BS
Could be.. who can tell these days, but for those who want to have babies, I would avoid it just in case, and the sugar too...
See my above comment, i explain how those studies manipulate.
Some do, some don't, see my other comment. As a lifelong truther/analyst/researcher type I am well aware of the possibility of manipulation, substitution, outright lies even--- but that may or may not be a study-specific characteristic or an article specific characteristic and shouldn't be generalized. You said you make your own extract, which is good and I am sure must be more basic and healthy than chem stevia... idk why you are defending processed stevia in general since you yourself state [and I concur] that what the label says and what the actual substance being sold or studied may be manipulated, substituted, processed with chemicals etc etc etc.
Based on this comment, you clearly did not even understand what I said, and you also seem to have no idea what stevia is.
Illogical statement based on the discussion- now you are just resorting to blowing smoke... like a stevia pushing shill.
You might be the most hilarious person I've ever encountered here. Good job. Keep it up.
I have an oddly specific personal experience with this.
My mother had a surprise 4th child in her 40s after a month or so off diet soda, after years of “oh I guess Im old enough to not have to worry about that”…. And that happened while using stevia. — That made for an 18 year age gap between my youngest brother and I.
I could believe stevia could be a problem for some people or it you have a weirdly large amount… But I’ve SEEN fake sweetener definitely be worse than stevia.
Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. I've always hated stevia and consider it evil.
Are you confusing it with splenda?? The actual evil sweetener that gives everyone colon cancer??
No. I am talking about stevia. It is from a plant related to ragweed, and ragweed is a very common allergen. Yet it's put in just about everything, like HFCS.
Stevia always reminds me of how Walter White bumped off that broad at the end of the "Breaking Bad" series. That was some good TV!